[Evolution] Evo 2.0 + MailDir format
Not Zed
notzed@ximian.com
Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:41:02 +0800
--=-jkJcs2q/CSCttFcb0rEG
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > > Now, There is a workaround as I found on a post from guenther dated
> > > Jan-05-2005. The workaround is rather crude but works, it entails
> > > creating a separate Account, and making the "receiving server" to be
> > > maildir format directories.
>
> > Why is that crude? This is a better method since it exposes the data
> > to external applications as well. The other way was a bit silly as it
> > was entirely internal.
>
> Well compared to the previous style, this is considered crude. What is
> the other method? Are you referencing the 1.4.x method? I kinda like
> that. Users get to specify a per-folder basis.
That is just stupid over-engineering.
> > > I would like to go to the path of a Local IMAP server, but find that
> > > that might be overkill for a Laptop system. :-D
>
> > Why would that be any less crude than just setting up a 'local maildir' account?
>
> There's the additional overhead of setting up a IMAP server. I think I
> can go to the dovecot path it, being less hassle to set-up but given the
> choice, I think I will go to postfix+cyrus. (right now it's sendmail)
So, it would be mroe crude then.
> > > Its hard to distinguish from the address book who is whom since all I
> > > get is "Heng, Ow"
> > I think you have to edit the 'file as' entry manually.
>
> If thats the case, I might really not have an option since it's a
> company LDAP directory. The thing is, in 1.4.x it shows the full name
> when I do a search in the GAL,(addressbook) but in 2.0 it doesn't show
> up as that.
Did you file a bug?
--=-jkJcs2q/CSCttFcb0rEG
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.5.5">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > Now, There is a workaround as I found on a post from guenther dated</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > Jan-05-2005. The workaround is rather crude but works, it entails</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > creating a separate Account, and making the "receiving server" to be</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > maildir format directories. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> Why is that crude? This is a better method since it exposes the data</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> to external applications as well. The other way was a bit silly as it</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> was entirely internal. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Well compared to the previous style, this is considered crude. What is</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">the other method? Are you referencing the 1.4.x method? I kinda like</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">that. Users get to specify a per-folder basis.</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
That is just stupid over-engineering.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > I would like to go to the path of a Local IMAP server, but find that</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > that might be overkill for a Laptop system. :-D</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> Why would that be any less crude than just setting up a 'local maildir' account?</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">There's the additional overhead of setting up a IMAP server. I think I</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">can go to the dovecot path it, being less hassle to set-up but given the</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">choice, I think I will go to postfix+cyrus. (right now it's sendmail)</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
So, it would be mroe crude then.<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > Its hard to distinguish from the address book who is whom since all I</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > get is "Heng, Ow"</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> I think you have to edit the 'file as' entry manually.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">If thats the case, I might really not have an option since it's a</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">company LDAP directory. The thing is, in 1.4.x it shows the full name</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">when I do a search in the GAL,(addressbook) but in 2.0 it doesn't show</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">up as that.</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<PRE>
Did you file a bug?
</PRE>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--=-jkJcs2q/CSCttFcb0rEG--