Bernhard Herzog schrieb:
Hi all,
On 15.01.2009, Sascha Wilde wrote:
But should it just internally convert "owner" to "username" when replying? From our experience this would be a very good idea. Many clients recognize the username and handle those ACLs differently in there UI (for example they don't offer them for editing). But they don't understand "owner".
To work around this, we created a patch that tries to avoid the owner ACL entries. It does not translate between "owner" and username in the imap-acl plugin, but tries not to automatically create an ACL owner entries. Having implemented this patch now, I wonder whether the translation wouldn't have been simpler and better. Anyway, the main goal of the patch is to work around the problems we've observed with some clients when they encounter "owner" ACL entries so that we can get on with testing.
I don't think the patch is the right solution to the problem, but I've included it anyway. Maybe it's useful for a discussion.
Cheers,
Bernhard
Hi,
i dont think you should mess around what clients think where should this end , the technical right and most clear description is owner, username can be very wide interpreted and may lead to technical problems in reading imap-acl i.e from horde imp or other mail clients later, as far i remember owner is use i.e in exchange too
what may help would be is additionial username info to owner dont no if this can be coded.
Using shared folder , a client has to understand how to use the system and read faqs, this is the same on all exist shared folder using mail/imap systems
just my thoughts no flame anyway thx for coding
-- Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer
Germany/Munich/Bavaria