on 3/11/03 6:50 AM, Jesse Guardiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 11 March 2003 01:15, Kurt Bigler wrote: >> on 3/10/03 8:56 PM, Jesse Guardiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip] >> >> Some context was lost from our original discussion - I actually filled a >> little more of it in above - stuff that was snipped. I think you were >> saying the hard default only kicks in when there is no popup. When there >> is a popup and the user choses the empty item, only then are they free to >> type in their domain in the userid field. Did I get that right? > > Hmmm... yes. It appears to be that you can type in a full email address when > the drop down is empty. > > I actually had to test this manually since my patch doesn't actually modify > the code that actually processes the 'logindomain' form variable, and I wasn't > sure if you could do this before I modified the logindomainlist functionality > or not. If you mean the user selecting the empty item, then yes, this always allowed typing the domain, as I recall. For me, selecting the blank item always created the same behavior as if the popup were not there at all. >> If so, then item (4) in the list above is different from items (1) through >> (3). >> >> Enough feedback for one round though. Maybe enough for you to throw back >> another proposal that needs only tiny tweaks, if any? >> >> Leaving the doc for one comment on the features/implementation: The above >> thoughts about the blank item in the popup makes me think that some admins >> might prefer having a way to OMIT the blank item from the popup, in case it >> is not useful, or in case the admin does not want to allow access to other >> domains from that page. Just a thought for the record. Nothing that needs >> to be acted on, until/unless it turns out to actually matter to someone. > > I don't really see this tripping anyone up. Agreed. > Actually, something I'm thinking about implementing in the next patch is a > way to generate a textfield, and a defaulted textfield (with the login domain > already filled in). And maybe even a disabled, defaulted textfield (with the > login domain already filled in). You mean instead of the hidden field? The hidden field and the static text (with the @ sign) were always redundant. If you mean allowing the user to type their domain in a domain field instead of in the userid field, I think that is also useful. I even suggested it at one point very early on. But I also didn't need to make this any harder! > I wouldn't use the functionality myself, but I plan to submit this same patch > to the qmailadmin folks in the near future, and qmailadmin currently uses an > empty text field for the login domain. Some of those folks might want to see > a text field included in this kind of functionality. I would love it if qmailadmin had a domain popup. That would be much more helpful for me. But if I had to go to a different web domain for each email domain and this made the email domain automatic, that would also be much better than what we have now. > Perhaps the '-' modifier could specify a text field? The text field should > accept wild cards too, I should think. > > How does that sound? I'll leave the details on this one to you! But it seems to me that a separate additional 4th field is the best place to put this. Thanks, Kurt > > >> >> -Kurt >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jesse >>> >>>> Thats all! >>>> >>>> -Kurt
