Interact - believe me, creating an IMAP server is way outside my skill set. garth
At 10:32 2/08/02 -0700, you wrote: >Question: >Are you looking to create an IMAP server? Or just interact with an IMAP >server? > >The reason I am asking is this. The New @EMAIL and @EMAILSESSION tags >let you interact with an IMAP/POP3 server, but they don't let you create >an IMAP Server. Just wanted to clarify this. > > >Ben Johansen - http://www.pcforge.com >Authorized Witango Reseller http://www.pcforge.com/WitangoGoodies.htm >Latest downloads & List Archives @ http://www.witango.ws > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Garth Penglase >Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:15 PM >To: Multiple recipients of list witango-talk >Subject: Witango-Talk: Webmail solution - any interest? > >Sure. I want to do it, but how to do it? commercially or communally? > >I've been tossing the idea of doing my own IMAP webmail interface around >in >my head for a while now. All I have read about what has been done >already >with custom headers and email systems makes me believe that I can do >something like this, particularly with the new product and its more >advanced email handling (from the little that I know from reading Scott >Cadillac's run-down and a couple of other emails). > >My only concern is that, while it would be as good as a standard perl / >cgi >based system which calls cgi or pl routines from disk, similar to >current >Tango, what I want to build is something more along the lines of a java >based product similar to Sake ( http://www.endymion.com ) which, when >run >on Jserv or Tomcat (mac os x server comes with tomcat I believe), loads >the >application files once into RAM and then spawns a session for each new >user. This product has the benefit of being significantly faster and >more >scalable, and when using IMAP, is truly portable. > >I have set up a webmail system on Linux (ie NetWin's dmailweb) which >worked >well and is a simple way to go, but required direct use and access to >the >Linux user system. This means that you can't really expect to install a >system like that on someone else's web server - maybe you could with my >envisaged product. Also it means that if you want to move to another >webmail system in the future, if you aren't using IMAP (which I wasn't >with >dmailweb, though I think it is an option) you are stuck with a porting >problem in regards to the existing email. And besides, the user >authentication system is all setup using Linux users. > >So I want something which is truly portable, scalable, IMAP based for >email >portability, and easy to configure. The only way I can see to do this is >to >create it in tango (oops... sorry Richard, it'll be Witango then, won't >it) >and deploy to java, hopefully giving me the best of both worlds: new >funky >email tags in Witango and scalability in java. And with an easy setup >process and admin system second to none hopefully. I might just have a >good >product which could be useful to more people than just me. > >And it has to have pretty much all of the main features that Yahoo et al > >have (though the virus scanning of emails might be a doozy of an issue). > >Am I having myself on, or is this possible? I think it is, and when I >have >something like a schema worked out, I'd be happy to share it. Maybe I >should look at doing it as a cheaply priced commercially available >product >similar to what Robert's doing with the image thing. Maybe we should do >it >communally and all own the rights to it if it is bigger than Ben Hur and > >then use it as an example of what we can do as a community. > >Garth > > > >At 07:19 2/08/02 -0500, you wrote: > >Garth > > > > > > > >I have been wanting to do what you mentioned. When you have a skeleton > >type of logic flow for the IMAP project, I would really like to see >your > >layout. > > > >Steve > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Garth Penglase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1:34 PM > >To: Multiple recipients of list witango-talk > >Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: Comparing WO to Witango > > > >When Apple dropped the price of WO I was about to debunk, but to be > >quite > >open about it Robert, it has been some of your posts on this issue that > >have galvanised my position on this toward WiTango, even though it > >offered > >java deployment when WiTango didn't. > > > >I myself have grown as a programmer through using WiTango and using >this > > > >list, though I could never put myself in the same category as some of > >the > >members of this list, obviously. Having said that, there has never been > >a > >project that I haven't been able to complete successfully using Tango, > >and > >on some of the earlier ones we were pushing the envelope somewhat. > > > >My next projects will certainly test the ease of development though: > >- a full featured IMAP webmail interface for my celtic community site > >- a celtic community college where all of the courses are conducted > >securely online. > >- and maybe a XML web site accessing Novell's Directory services >pulling > > > >together 8 disparate databases. > > > >Garth > > > > > >At 10:28 1/08/02 -0700, you wrote: > > >It is more than just getting used to something. I literally spent >over > >30 > > >days like a monk with WO. It is just not possible to develop as >quickly > > >IMHO. Or I would have gutted it out. I will look for them, but there > >have > > >been several articles written about this, that WO is a burden on >small > >to > > >medium size apps, and 90% of development falls into this category. If > >you > > >are going to write the ecommerce site for dell, use WO. Its rigid > > >object/class structure lends itself to a huge project with multiple > > >developers. But I dare say that tango has the ability to do this >also, > >you > > >just also have the ability to "cheat" and get it done quickly. > > > > > >A good example is the TCF. A TCF should be an object, like a class >file > >in > > >java, a separate piece of code with an input/output inteface. It >should > > >adhere to this strict structure so that it can only manipulate what >it > >is > > >passed, and then spit out its output. But we all know that we can > >access > > >many variables from with the TCF and sometimes use it in ways that > >makes it > > >not an "object" at all. But who cares. I choose to use TCFs as true > >objects > > >for code portability across applications. If a developer wants to > >"cheat", > > >let him. That is part of the greatness of Witango, it is as flexible >or > >as > > >rigid as you desire. I have a few apps that I wrote when I was a > >newbie, > > >that I would be embarrassed to share, but at least I got the job >done. > >I > > >would never have been able to tackle WO at that level. But as I have > >grown > > >as a developer, I would put my apps up with anyones. They are > >structured, > > >and logical. Witango helped me get there. > > > > > >Sorry for the rambling. > > > > > >-- > > > > > >Robert Garcia > > >BigHead Technology > > >2781 N Carlmont Pl > > >Simi Valley, CA 93065 > > >Phone 805.501.1390 > > >Fax 805.522.8557 > > >http://www.bighead.net/ > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > From: Garth Penglase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 02:42:27 +1000 > > > > To: Multiple recipients of list witango-talk > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: Comparing WO to Witango > > > > > > > > I think that once you get used to something, unless there are > >significant > > > > drawbacks (such as lack of cross-platform in Alex's case, >(previous) > >lack > > > > of Java deployment etc.) with your current tools you stick with >what > >you > > > > have invested the most time with. > > > > > > >_______________________________________________________________________ > >_ > > >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body > > > >_______________________________________________________________________ >_ > >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body > >_______________________________________________________________________ >_ > >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body > >________________________________________________________________________ >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body > >________________________________________________________________________ >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body
