Brian Candler writes: > Oh I see what you mean: "new functionality already in sqwebmail is missing > from riwos". I originally read it as "there are new functions which are > missing from sqwebmail which are also missing from riwos"
Sorry if my statement was ambiguous. The new functionality in sqwebmail is one of the reasons I managed to persuade my PHB not to switch to Exchange for mail servers, because without that functionality we'd slowly lose all our clients. > > Exchange allows vacation messages (done > > sensibly, not the qmailadmin/autoresponder broken way). > > Now that I *strongly* disagree with. Exchange's autoresponders are > totally broken. I have never, ever used Exchange, so I had to go by what others told me. It does not surprise me that Exchange's vacation responders are broken (does it still default to being an open relay and require an undocemented registry hack to stop it being wide open). But so is qmailadmin's, because it uses autoresponder which is designed to respond to everything. The maildrop responder is much smarter in many ways since it can be told to ignore certain messages based on sender, recipient address or content, and can be told not to reply to the same sender within a user-specified period, as well as ignoring mailing lists. > I do auto-responders using an LDAP attribute and exim, by the way. Users > can't use sqwebmail to set them, so they have to go in through our > database 'self-care' interface. I prefer the Sqwebmail filters, simply because it's all in one place. The less glue and customization I have to provide, the better. > > > and the clean templates without rounded corners are two > > > very big improvements IMO. > > > > You, sir, are a techy. > > I am, but that's an orthogonal issue. Nope, you expressed an aesthetic preference there. :) > Hard-coding this design in the HTML is very poor, Now that is a technical issue. And you are correct that hard-coding it is bad. But whether or not rounded-corners look better is a matter of aesthetics and, on slow lines, usability. How the corners are implemented is the technical issue. > and more importantly, the existing design does not allow the > colours of the boxes to be changed in the stylesheet; Also not good. :( Even Microsoft and Netscape regretted introducing their font tag abominations less than a year after they had done so. CSS is the way to do it, and has been for many years. > There's no way I will let our users touch the HTML itself; Nor us. Not just because it complicates matters and increases bandwidth but from the certainty that they'll mess things up completely and then demand we fix it for them even though they're not paying for support. > it would lock us in to one version of sqwebmail and make it impossible to > upgrade in future without manually tweaking *all* their templates to > match. That too. Nightmare time. Even tweaking the templates once to give it our look and feel is a pain. I suspect that when sqwebmail started out it was simple enough that the template design was workable but now sqwebmail complexity has outgrown it. > > Riwos has sounds? I am glad I didn't find the test account. Seriously, > > I can see some people liking them. But they'd have to be something you > > could enable or disable as a preference. > > You can (and it's off by default). But it's an unnecessary option IMO; it > simply shouldn't be there in the first place. Smacks of "hey I'm clever, I > can code HTML which makes sounds in your browser". Actually, some people would find it useful, believe it or not. You're busy working in another window and oblivious to the passage of time. Hours later you remember to check your mail and see that you received an urgent message a couple of hours ago. I did enable sound on Nagios once so it alerted me to problems when I was working in another window but had to disable it because the sound played repeatedly instead of a one-off alert. There are times when an e-mail sound would be very useful to me, provided I could make it apply only to certain folders (don't bother me for mailing list stuff but do bother me if it's support mail). > Like all those old Flash-based websites which were packed-full of > animation which made it completely impossible to view the actual content. Flash is very good for animations which themselves ARE the content of the site (see, for example, <URL: http://www.bushflash.com >). But when used for navigation menus and/or for "presentation" it should be called Flush because a site that uses it that way has gone down the toilet. Please note that my PHB, our head graphics guy and most of our clients disagree with me on that one, which is why our own site uses Flush for navigation (I hate our own site intensely - but I'm a techy). -- Paul Allen Softflare Support
