Thank's James for you answer. I don't want my users to be unable to delete/rename folders. Simply I want to put the folder list in folder.html, readmsg.html, etc., without the chekcbox but giving a link for another template like "Manager folders" where the users can delete, rename, etc. their folders.
----- Original Message ----- From: James A Baker To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 5:09 AM Subject: Re: [sqwebmail] Getting folders name without radio buton On Sunday, Oct 26, 2003, at 20:19 US/Central, jeo wrote: Hi, I'm working on a new template for sqwebmail. I want to display the folder list with number of messages but without delete/rename radio buton. However, it seem not to be possible using templates tags since #L# returns the folders with radio button. Can anyone give me a sugestion ? I don't know C... First, I'd suggest that you're looking for trouble by doing this. If you don't deactivate the creation of folders while you're at it, then I think you'll find your users starting to complain when they can't delete a folder that they misspelled when they created it -- or have simply gotten tired of having around and want to reorganize their account. ... And you may find yourself with a server of proliferating folder structures that are "troublesome" to delete. ;-) But with that said, here's a simple patch that should do what you want. -- Of course, you should also delete the (now useless) "Delete folder" button and "Delete folder contents" checkbox in the HTML template itself, if you haven't already. Like I said, I don't think this is such a hot idea by itself... but nonetheless, if you so choose, then I hope you enjoy it! =) -jab P.S. This doesn't actually stop a user from deleting folders if they know how sqwebmail works. They could always construct a CGI request manually that would delete a folder. -- It's not easy for most people, but it can be almost trivial if you know what you're doing. -- So this is just a way to *obscure* the feature, not remove it entirely from the code. Removing it would require a bit more investigation than I did for this patch. :-) Might be harder to do, or it might not. But I haven't looked.
