I have been reading about this new patch pretty carefully and would like to offer my opinion as a end-user and sysadmin. I think that the functionality of Kurt Bigler's proposed additions would make it much more customizable. I haven't implemented the use of the logindomainlist because I do not want anyone who logs into any one of the domains on my server to be able to see what other domains are there. I think that is a security issue. Adding a grouping to the domains makes it much easier for me to start using that file to provide selections to those who login and also including Jesse Guardiani's changes would make it so that for some you wouldn't even need to have a domain selection. In my opinion I would like to see Kurt's changes on top of Jesse's. Hopefully the IP mapping could also be added to that single file. It didn't look like Kurt addressed that at all in his proposal. I wish that I could help but I can't code worth a darn.
Joe Howard > -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt Bigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [sqwebmail] NEW: domainmap Patch > > on 2/24/03 8:23 PM, Jesse Guardiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Kurt Bigler wrote: > >> In this proposal logindomainlist would have records of this form: > >> > >> login-domain:web-domain-spec:group-key > > [snip] > > > Well, I definately see what you were getting at now. > > > > I'd be extremely interested in hearing how many people would like to see > > this kind of functionality included in vpopmail (especially you, Sam). > > [snip] > > > I mean, where do we stop? Why not add a field for regular expression > matches > > or > > external program calls? And quickly we'd be writing bloatware rather > than the > > lean mean sqwebmail we know and (hopefully) love. > > I think there is usually some intuitive place to stop - something like the > place where the benefit to effort ratio suddenly rises. (And this may be > perceived differently by different people.) But there is also sometimes a > reason not to stop yet: when the jump to the next level would involve a > significantly incompatible change that you would rather avoid doing later. > In this case combining the two files in my mind brings the existing > functionality to its fruition while insuring against likely incompatible > changes being forthcoming - or worse yet desired changes not being > forthcoming purely because of the burdern of compatibility. > > > I wrote my domainmap code because it was extremely quick and easy to > write, > > and > > because it addressed an issue that I genuinely believed would do some > people > > good and make a few hundred thousand user's lives easier. > [snip] > > Yes, well that does put it in a bigger perspective. I'll admit I was > thinking a little smaller with mostly the server administrators in mind. > (And in my case perhaps small-time server administrators!) But of course > the end users are who we are ultimately serving. > > > If ten or twenty people write back about this thread and say, "Hey! That > would > > be the greatest thing next to sliced bread!", then you have my blessing > to > > write the code yourself. You seem to be a decent analytical thinker. > I'll even > > help out a little if you need some pointers. But I just can't justify > writing > > it myself as I'll probably never use it. > > If it turns out to be desirable I'll be glad to do it. I think I would > only > be adding 50% at the most to what you did. The small increment of effort > here is part of the reason I see this level as a good "place to stop". > > Thanks again, > Kurt Bigler > > > And, as always, I'd still greatly enjoy reading everyone's opinion on > the > > matter. > > > > Good luck! > > > > Jesse > >
