Hi All,
I run a little hosting company. I use Dovecot 1.0.10* with IMAP
exclusively. Lots of my customers use Outlook or Outlook Express. This
poses a problem. These programs don't and have absolutely no
workarounds to move messages to a trash folder when deleted. They only
mark the message for deletion. Then, users have to purge the message
to actually delete it. Outlook has a way to hide deleted messages and
also auto-purge them when moving to a different folder. That just
doesn't cut it. (Thanks Microsoft! :-p )
So, I'm thinking Dovecot could pick up where Microsoft left off.
It seems to me there needs to be two things done. First, a system that
automatically copy a message marked for deletion from one folder (e.g.
INBOX) to a trash folder (e.g. Trash, Deleted Messages, etc.)
Dovecot's lazy_expunge might already do this, but I couldn't quite
discern it from the wiki docs. Second, a way to only do this when
Outlook or Outlook Express is the one who is deleting a message.
Possibility? Comments?
Cheers, Jason
P.S. Thanks for the great software!
*Yes, I know. I need to upgrade to Dovecot 1.0.13.
-- Jason Wohlford <jason@wohlford.org> <http://wohlford.org>
Jason Wohlford wrote:
Hi All,
I run a little hosting company. I use Dovecot 1.0.10* with IMAP exclusively. Lots of my customers use Outlook or Outlook Express. This poses a problem. These programs don't and have absolutely no workarounds to move messages to a trash folder when deleted. They only mark the message for deletion. Then, users have to purge the message to actually delete it. Outlook has a way to hide deleted messages and also auto-purge them when moving to a different folder. That just doesn't cut it. (Thanks Microsoft! :-p )
So, I'm thinking Dovecot could pick up where Microsoft left off.
It seems to me there needs to be two things done. First, a system that automatically copy a message marked for deletion from one folder (e.g. INBOX) to a trash folder (e.g. Trash, Deleted Messages, etc.) Dovecot's lazy_expunge might already do this, but I couldn't quite discern it from the wiki docs. Second, a way to only do this when Outlook or Outlook Express is the one who is deleting a message.
Possibility? Comments?
Yes...outlook is one of the worst imap client I have seen..:)
The problem is that the user's Trash folder was not at the root level of the email account. Outlook did not know how to deal with that. Move/create users trash folder to the root level. Look for trash (deleted items) folder with the correct icon appeared. Correct icon indicates that Outlook now recognizes trash as trash folder.
Cheers, Jason
P.S. Thanks for the great software!
*Yes, I know. I need to upgrade to Dovecot 1.0.13.
Uldis
On Apr 15, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Uldis Pakuls wrote:
Jason Wohlford wrote:
Hi All,
I run a little hosting company. I use Dovecot 1.0.10* with IMAP
exclusively. Lots of my customers use Outlook or Outlook Express.
This poses a problem. These programs don't and have absolutely no
workarounds to move messages to a trash folder when deleted. They
only mark the message for deletion. Then, users have to purge the
message to actually delete it. Outlook has a way to hide deleted
messages and also auto-purge them when moving to a different
folder. That just doesn't cut it. (Thanks Microsoft! :-p )So, I'm thinking Dovecot could pick up where Microsoft left off.
It seems to me there needs to be two things done. First, a system
that automatically copy a message marked for deletion from one
folder (e.g. INBOX) to a trash folder (e.g. Trash, Deleted
Messages, etc.) Dovecot's lazy_expunge might already do this, but I
couldn't quite discern it from the wiki docs. Second, a way to only
do this when Outlook or Outlook Express is the one who is deleting
a message.Possibility? Comments?
Yes...outlook is one of the worst imap client I have seen..:)
The problem is that the user's Trash folder was not at the root
level of the email account. Outlook did not know how to deal with
that. Move/create users trash folder to the root level. Look for
trash (deleted items) folder with the correct icon appeared. Correct
icon indicates that Outlook now recognizes trash as trash folder.
I'll have to look into that. That's very interesting. Thanks for the
tip Uldis.
-- Jason Wohlford <jason@wohlford.org> <http://wohlford.org>
Jason Wohlford schrieb:
Hi All,
I run a little hosting company. I use Dovecot 1.0.10* with IMAP exclusively. Lots of my customers use Outlook or Outlook Express. This poses a problem. These programs don't and have absolutely no workarounds to move messages to a trash folder when deleted. They only mark the message for deletion. Then, users have to purge the message to actually delete it. Outlook has a way to hide deleted messages and also auto-purge them when moving to a different folder. That just doesn't cut it. (Thanks Microsoft! :-p )
So, I'm thinking Dovecot could pick up where Microsoft left off.
It seems to me there needs to be two things done. First, a system that automatically copy a message marked for deletion from one folder (e.g. INBOX) to a trash folder (e.g. Trash, Deleted Messages, etc.) Dovecot's lazy_expunge might already do this, but I couldn't quite discern it from the wiki docs. Second, a way to only do this when Outlook or Outlook Express is the one who is deleting a message.
Possibility? Comments?
Cheers, Jason
P.S. Thanks for the great software!
*Yes, I know. I need to upgrade to Dovecot 1.0.13.
Hi Jason, forget about workarounds for outlook express its a broken client for several reasons, just advice not not use it.
Outlook isnt Outlook , div versions with div patchlevel working in different ways and have different ways ( or no ways ) to solve your Problem here ist good advice for imap purge http://www.landaenterprises.com/support/email_imap_delete.asp note purge in this case ist a function of the client which the user may handle as he likes
if you want outlook move sent mails to a imap sent folder use a filter rule
look here for advice http://kb.nitix.com/1630
at last tell your users that outlook isnt a universal mail client specially with imap and smtp
Outlook is the client of m$ case in first case and fits to exchanges needs, and only with exchange it offers its workgroup funktions which are from interest in companies
m$ has no interest to make it better work with imap cause , they would loose money if the do so, cause as time goes by , specially smaller companies may find no need to buy expensive windows and exchange servers outlook licences anymore
advice users to use thunderbird/lightning as better choice
after all i dont think dovecot should try to deal with outlook troubles ( which are mutatating from version to version ) , as long as there is other important stuff to do (acl etc),but for sure this not my decision, its mainly the work of microsoft to support user questions about their expensive sold products not yours in my opinion
Same goes to apple mail which does serveral funny stuff with imap All these products are formed to make money with the special services m$ and apple provides, they arent meant to be highly compatible to wide spreaded imap,smtp opensoftware servers which mostly very clean coded
i know telling this truths are badly told to costumers and users in real life , but perhaps you may do the best you can to provide such info
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer
Germany/Munich/Bavaria
On 4/15/2008, Robert Schetterer (robert@schetterer.org) wrote:
Hi Jason, forget about workarounds for outlook express its a broken client for several reasons, just advice not not use it.
Outlook isnt Outlook , div versions with div patchlevel working in different ways and have different ways ( or no ways ) to solve your Problem here ist good advice for imap purge http://www.landaenterprises.com/support/email_imap_delete.asp note purge in this case ist a function of the client which the user may handle as he likes
if you want outlook move sent mails to a imap sent folder use a filter rule
Well... as much as I hate Outlook, apparently 2007 version has much improved IMAP support - as well as TLS and STARTTLS support (finally):
http://pschmid.net/blog/2006/11/23/81
From the link:
Outlook 2007 comes with improved IMAP support. As you might wonder what is new, here is the full list of improvements:
1. Outlook is now IMAP4 Revision 1 compatible (RFC 3501)
2. In previous versions, Outlook would pop up a dialog while synchronizing with an IMAP server. In 2007, Outlook uses a new chunking synchronizing strategy that allows users to work with IMAP items as they are being downloaded. 3. 2007 has better purging support. In 2003, you were only able to purge the current IMAP folder, now you can using Edit, Purge: * Purge current folder * Purge all folders for one IMAP account * Purge all folder in all IMAP accounts * Use the new Purge on Switch feature that purges items automatically when switching folders. This feature is disabled by default. You need to switch it on for each IMAP account separately via Edit, Purge, Purge Options, “Purge items when switching folders while online”. You can access the same dialog via Tools, Account Settings, Change for your IMAP account, More Settings. 4. You can now store your Sent Items in an IMAP folder. In previous versions, Outlook stored all sent items in a local PST and not on the IMAP server. When you send an email for an IMAP account the first time, Outlook will ask you whether to store the item in a folder on the server or not. You can access the setting at any point in time via Tools, Account Settings, Change for your IMAP account, More Settings, Folders. Please note that this setting will only be available after Outlook has synchronized with your IMAP account once (it needs to download the folder list first from the IMAP account) 5. IMAP accounts now use the Unicode PST format (introduced first in Outlook 2003) by default. In previous versions, IMAP accounts were limited to ANSI PSTs, which meant e.g. that your IMAP account could never be bigger than 2 GB. With providers already offering 2 GB IMAP accounts currently, e.g. as 1&1 does, it won’t be before long that larger than 2 GB IMAP accounts will be available widely. You should know though, that Outlook has no mechanism to convert an ANSI to a Unicode PST. The only way to “convert” your current IMAP ANSI PST to Unicode is to delete the file and let Outlook recreate it as Unicode PST. When you upgrade from an earlier version of Outlook, 2007 asks you whether it should do just that. 6. IMAP logging has also been improved in 2007. Outlook log files are created in “%temp%\outlook logging” and are named according to the account, activity (incoming/outgoing), as well as date and time of the first log entry. Outlook creates one log for each account per session. You can switch on logging via Tools, Options, Other, Advanced Options, “Enable logging (troubleshooting)”. 7. Outlook accounts now have a “Test Account Settings” button. You can find the button on the page where you enter the basic account information. 8. Security for IMAP accounts has been improved as well: * TLS encryption is now supported in addition to SSL (as required by IMAP4 Rev. 1). * The PLAIN authentication mechanism is now also supported. Meaning the PLAIN SASL mechanism (i.e. AUTH=PLAIN) as defined in RFC 2595 (again required by IMAP4 Rev. 1). * Support for STARTTLS was added (defined in RFC 2595). This allows starting SSL for an established IMAP4 session (another IMAP4 Rev. 1 requirement) * As for all other Internet E-mail accounts, the private ID field on SMTP outgoing messages as added. This is in reference to the new Postmark feature in 2007. More information about this feature is available on Office Online. 9. IMAP accounts (with the local PST in the Unicode format) now allow Search Folders similar to Search Folders that were already possible on regular PSTs in Outlook 2003. 10. In Outlook 2003, IMAP items could be assigned multiple different flags similar to any other email item in Outlook. This has been changed in 2007to only allow IMAP items to have a flag or no flag (flag can only be on or off). The change was made, as IMAP accounts only support such a limited flagging behavior and the different flags assigned to items in Outlook 2003 were not reflected on the IMAP server. In addition, IMAP items in Outlook 2007 cannot be assigned the new color categories, as those are not supported by the IMAP protocol either. 11. It is now easier to cache your IMAP items locally and even keep a full local copy of your IMAP account in the IMAP PST. In 2003, you had to select each folder individually that you wanted to be kept cached locally in the Send/Receive Settings dialog. In 2007, you can now choose to download all headers for all subscribed IMAP folders (meaning the ones shown to you in the folder list in Outlook) or all complete items including attachments for all subscribed folders. In addition, you can still define a custom behavior. The setting is available via Tools, Send/Receive, Send/Receive Settings, Define Send/Receive Groups, Edit for the send/receive group. Then select your IMAP account and choose the desired setting under “Receive mail items”.
--
Best regards,
Charles
Charles Marcus schrieb:
On 4/15/2008, Robert Schetterer (robert@schetterer.org) wrote:
Hi Jason, forget about workarounds for outlook express its a broken client for several reasons, just advice not not use it.
Outlook isnt Outlook , div versions with div patchlevel working in different ways and have different ways ( or no ways ) to solve your Problem here ist good advice for imap purge http://www.landaenterprises.com/support/email_imap_delete.asp note purge in this case ist a function of the client which the user may handle as he likes
if you want outlook move sent mails to a imap sent folder use a filter rule
Well... as much as I hate Outlook, apparently 2007 version has much improved IMAP support - as well as TLS and STARTTLS support (finally):
http://pschmid.net/blog/2006/11/23/81
From the link:
Outlook 2007 comes with improved IMAP support. As you might wonder what is new, here is the full list of improvements:
- Outlook is now IMAP4 Revision 1 compatible (RFC 3501)
- In previous versions, Outlook would pop up a dialog while synchronizing with an IMAP server. In 2007, Outlook uses a new chunking synchronizing strategy that allows users to work with IMAP items as they are being downloaded.
- 2007 has better purging support. In 2003, you were only able to purge the current IMAP folder, now you can using Edit, Purge: * Purge current folder * Purge all folders for one IMAP account * Purge all folder in all IMAP accounts * Use the new Purge on Switch feature that purges items automatically when switching folders. This feature is disabled by default. You need to switch it on for each IMAP account separately via Edit, Purge, Purge Options, “Purge items when switching folders while online”. You can access the same dialog via Tools, Account Settings, Change for your IMAP account, More Settings.
- You can now store your Sent Items in an IMAP folder. In previous versions, Outlook stored all sent items in a local PST and not on the IMAP server. When you send an email for an IMAP account the first time, Outlook will ask you whether to store the item in a folder on the server or not. You can access the setting at any point in time via Tools, Account Settings, Change for your IMAP account, More Settings, Folders. Please note that this setting will only be available after Outlook has synchronized with your IMAP account once (it needs to download the folder list first from the IMAP account)
- IMAP accounts now use the Unicode PST format (introduced first in Outlook 2003) by default. In previous versions, IMAP accounts were limited to ANSI PSTs, which meant e.g. that your IMAP account could never be bigger than 2 GB. With providers already offering 2 GB IMAP accounts currently, e.g. as 1&1 does, it won’t be before long that larger than 2 GB IMAP accounts will be available widely. You should know though, that Outlook has no mechanism to convert an ANSI to a Unicode PST. The only way to “convert” your current IMAP ANSI PST to Unicode is to delete the file and let Outlook recreate it as Unicode PST. When you upgrade from an earlier version of Outlook, 2007 asks you whether it should do just that.
- IMAP logging has also been improved in 2007. Outlook log files are created in “%temp%\outlook logging” and are named according to the account, activity (incoming/outgoing), as well as date and time of the first log entry. Outlook creates one log for each account per session. You can switch on logging via Tools, Options, Other, Advanced Options, “Enable logging (troubleshooting)”.
- Outlook accounts now have a “Test Account Settings” button. You can find the button on the page where you enter the basic account information.
- Security for IMAP accounts has been improved as well: * TLS encryption is now supported in addition to SSL (as required by IMAP4 Rev. 1). * The PLAIN authentication mechanism is now also supported. Meaning the PLAIN SASL mechanism (i.e. AUTH=PLAIN) as defined in RFC 2595 (again required by IMAP4 Rev. 1). * Support for STARTTLS was added (defined in RFC 2595). This allows starting SSL for an established IMAP4 session (another IMAP4 Rev. 1 requirement) * As for all other Internet E-mail accounts, the private ID field on SMTP outgoing messages as added. This is in reference to the new Postmark feature in 2007. More information about this feature is available on Office Online.
- IMAP accounts (with the local PST in the Unicode format) now allow Search Folders similar to Search Folders that were already possible on regular PSTs in Outlook 2003.
- In Outlook 2003, IMAP items could be assigned multiple different flags similar to any other email item in Outlook. This has been changed in 2007to only allow IMAP items to have a flag or no flag (flag can only be on or off). The change was made, as IMAP accounts only support such a limited flagging behavior and the different flags assigned to items in Outlook 2003 were not reflected on the IMAP server. In addition, IMAP items in Outlook 2007 cannot be assigned the new color categories, as those are not supported by the IMAP protocol either.
- It is now easier to cache your IMAP items locally and even keep a full local copy of your IMAP account in the IMAP PST. In 2003, you had to select each folder individually that you wanted to be kept cached locally in the Send/Receive Settings dialog. In 2007, you can now choose to download all headers for all subscribed IMAP folders (meaning the ones shown to you in the folder list in Outlook) or all complete items including attachments for all subscribed folders. In addition, you can still define a custom behavior. The setting is available via Tools, Send/Receive, Send/Receive Settings, Define Send/Receive Groups, Edit for the send/receive group. Then select your IMAP account and choose the desired setting under “Receive mail items”.
Hi Jason, nice link thx for that,i never used outlook 2007, and i dont know anybody who does in present
i dont hate outlook nor windows or m$, but i think microsoft should do the support as it is normal in other products too until they take big money for it, its not my job as isp mailadmin to do their job
i read about serveral problems with outlook 2007, i didnt tested it myself, so i cant say if that bug reports are true and i dont remember if they are in imap, cause i am not willing to update anymore m$ office, neither i have windows anymore, and mostly all of my customers will not get to office 2007 until they really have to do
i may test it if i will setup my next gen mailserver with dovecot 1.2 as i will test all other major spreaded mail clients in virtual os then.
But what i wrote stays , outlook is in first the client of exchange, i wasnt desigend to be very compatibel to other ( o-source) imap/smtp servers
Perhaps m$ will change now , pressed through the eu and loosing money about vista, for be more compatibel, but for now i simply anounce to my users and customers if you want outlook support ask m$ or pay 75 € per hour to use when we should help you, that keeps away silly questions after all we have a faq website with pictures for setting up outlook and other mail clients.
-- Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer
Germany/Munich/Bavaria
I hate defend Microsoft, but personally I found that Outlook Express to be one of the (overall) best IMAP clients out there... (on windows at least). Mulberry never quite seemed to work the way I expected and is now discontinued.
I personally used OE for many years and it took quite a long time for Thunderbird to work well enough with offline/disconnected operation to be useful *for me*. Outlook also seemed to work ok in most guises from 2002 ish onwards (although 2003 seems a great improvement in most ways).
All clients seem to have bugs and problems, but personally I rate OE as one of the best clients out there for people on dialup and lower bandwidth lines. I particularly like the popup box which tells you *exactly* what it's doing, how long is left, and also makes it very simple to hangup the dialup connection when finished (or not). It has very precise syncing of folders, so you can avoid downloading all messages over your expensive GPRS link, and you can very precisely choose even which indiivdual messages to sync. If it's possible to make Thunderbird auto dial and hangup, and show the same progress dialogs then I'm all ears... In the meantime we put all our customers on OE (or Windows Mail as it's called under Vista) - works very well in practice
Good luck
Ed W
At 2:08 PM +0100 4/17/08, Ed W wrote:
I hate defend Microsoft, but personally I found that Outlook Express to be one of the (overall) best IMAP clients out there... (on windows at least). Mulberry never quite seemed to work the way I expected and is now discontinued.
Not really. The commercial operation trying to market it went bankrupt, but the author managed to reclaim Mulberry and it is now open source.
I think one reason Mulberry may seem counterintuitive is that it exposes behavior of IMAP that is counterintuitive.
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com
On 4/17/2008, Ed W (lists@wildgooses.com) wrote:
I found that Outlook Express to be one of the (overall) best IMAP clients out there...
Very arguable to say the least. It is definitely better than Outlook, but thats not saying much.
Thunderbird has worked *very* well in our 60+ user installation for the last 4+ years...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:28:04 +0200 Robert Schetterer <robert@schetterer.org> wrote:
Jason Wohlford schrieb:
Hi All,
I run a little hosting company. I use Dovecot 1.0.10* with IMAP exclusively. Lots of my customers use Outlook or Outlook Express. This poses a problem. These programs don't and have absolutely no workarounds to move messages to a trash folder when deleted. They only mark the message for deletion. Then, users have to purge the message to actually delete it. Outlook has a way to hide deleted messages and also auto-purge them when moving to a different folder. That just doesn't cut it. (Thanks Microsoft! :-p )
So, I'm thinking Dovecot could pick up where Microsoft left off.
It seems to me there needs to be two things done. First, a system that automatically copy a message marked for deletion from one folder (e.g. INBOX) to a trash folder (e.g. Trash, Deleted Messages, etc.) Dovecot's lazy_expunge might already do this, but I couldn't quite discern it from the wiki docs. Second, a way to only do this when Outlook or Outlook Express is the one who is deleting a message.
Hi Jason, forget about workarounds for outlook express its a broken client for several reasons, just advice not not use it.
Outlook isnt Outlook , div versions with div patchlevel working in different ways and have different ways ( or no ways ) to solve your Problem here ist good advice for imap purge http://www.landaenterprises.com/support/email_imap_delete.asp note purge in this case ist a function of the client which the user may handle as he likes
if you want outlook move sent mails to a imap sent folder use a filter rule
look here for advice http://kb.nitix.com/1630
at last tell your users that outlook isnt a universal mail client specially with imap and smtp
Outlook is the client of m$ case in first case and fits to exchanges needs, and only with exchange it offers its workgroup funktions which are from interest in companies
m$ has no interest to make it better work with imap cause , they would loose money if the do so, cause as time goes by , specially smaller companies may find no need to buy expensive windows and exchange servers outlook licences anymore
advice users to use thunderbird/lightning as better choice
after all i dont think dovecot should try to deal with outlook troubles ( which are mutatating from version to version ) , as long as there is other important stuff to do (acl etc),but for sure this not my decision, its mainly the work of microsoft to support user questions about their expensive sold products not yours in my opinion
Same goes to apple mail which does serveral funny stuff with imap All these products are formed to make money with the special services m$ and apple provides, they arent meant to be highly compatible to wide spreaded imap,smtp opensoftware servers which mostly very clean coded
i know telling this truths are badly told to costumers and users in real life , but perhaps you may do the best you can to provide such info
Before you continue your diatribe, you might want to consider confining your remarks to the latest version of Outlook and not some obsolete versions.
It might also interest you to know that many users prefer Outlook because it has the features they want, and works seamlessly with other products that they employ.
I have employed many MUA's in the past. None were perfect, and many were far worse than Outlook. For the record, Outlook Express is depreciated by Microsoft. It is no longer actively supported and only essential security updates will be issued. Personally, I never knew any professionals who used that program anyway; all though I am sure that some did.
-- Gerard gerard@seibercom.net
To use violence is to already be defeated.
Chinese proverbOn Apr 15, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Hi Jason, forget about workarounds for outlook express its a broken client for several reasons, just advice not not use it.
Outlook isnt Outlook , div versions with div patchlevel working in different ways and have different ways ( or no ways ) to solve your Problem here ist good advice for imap purge http://www.landaenterprises.com/support/email_imap_delete.asp note purge in this case ist a function of the client which the user may handle as he likes
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to work around.
if you want outlook move sent mails to a imap sent folder use a filter rule
look here for advice http://kb.nitix.com/1630
I thought those were already being handled correctly. Looks like I've
got to look into that too.
at last tell your users that outlook isnt a universal mail client specially with imap and smtp
I know that. You know that, but my clients are certainly not going to
accept that as an answer. They'll simply go elsewhere.
Outlook is the client of m$ case in first case and fits to exchanges needs, and only with exchange it offers its workgroup funktions which are from interest in companies
m$ has no interest to make it better work with imap cause , they would loose money if the do so, cause as time goes by , specially smaller companies may find no need to buy expensive windows and exchange servers outlook
licences anymore
Preaching to the choir.
advice users to use thunderbird/lightning as better choice
I do. I actually push Thunderbird pretty heavily. Maybe too heavily.
Same goes to apple mail which does serveral funny stuff with imap All these products are formed to make money with the special
services m$ and apple provides, they arent meant to be highly compatible to wide spreaded imap,smtp opensoftware servers which mostly very
clean coded
We'll I'll have to disagree with you there. I find Mail.app to be a
great little program. Mac OS X Server uses Cyrus and Postfix. I've
even gone command line to fine tune some spam settings. Now, you can
certainly dis-Apple for many other things, but Mail.app works to spec.
Cheers, Jason
-- Jason Wohlford <jason@wohlford.org> <http://wohlford.org>
On Apr 17 2008, Jason Wohlford wrote:
We'll I'll have to disagree with you there. I find Mail.app to be a
great little program. Mac OS X Server uses Cyrus and Postfix. I've
even gone command line to fine tune some spam settings. Now, you can
certainly dis-Apple for many other things, but Mail.app works to spec.
I don't pretend to know whether Mail.app conforms precisely to the IMAP spec (though I highly doubt it), but I do know that it has three raging deficiencies:
It is almost as bad as Outlook in the arena of MIME mangling (this isn't really related to IMAP, just getting it out of the way).
It has a really nasty habit of working your actions on its local cache, and only periodically issuing streams of IMAP commands to the server. If the IMAP session gets interrupted for any reason, this results in chaos. It's pretty repulsive.
It, like Outlook and unlike Thunderbird, is... sub-optimal in its use of the "IMAP root" setting. Mail.app and Outlook will never access any space that does not begin with that prefix. What this means, is that if you're using a non-Maildir format (say, mbox, like the majority of the world still does), you have basically no hope as an administrator of physically separating storage--especially if your user accounts are used for anything other than mail. If you have mailboxes in, say, ~/mail, then your users need to use 'mail' as the "IMAP root" in order to avoid seeing whatever dotfiles, FTP space, web space, etc, may be in their home directories.
With that prefix set, Mail.app and Outlook both *ignore any namespaces that don't start with this prefix*. I can't stress enough how utterly moronic this is. The entire point of namespaces is to offer up other storage alongside the user's "default" space; implementing the NAMESPACE command and then filtering it based on where the user tells you to find the default storage is possibly the dumbest thing I've seen in many dumb years of e-mail client debugging. Yes, yes, you can use symlinks. For now, we do. And it's a limiting pain.
Frankly, I love most Apple apps, but for environments with any complexity Mail needs to be fixed or shot; it's just awful.
-Brian
Jason Wohlford schrieb:
On Apr 15, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Hi Jason, forget about workarounds for outlook express its a broken client for several reasons, just advice not not use it.
Outlook isnt Outlook , div versions with div patchlevel working in different ways and have different ways ( or no ways ) to solve your Problem here ist good advice for imap purge http://www.landaenterprises.com/support/email_imap_delete.asp note purge in this case ist a function of the client which the user may handle as he likes
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to work around.
if you want outlook move sent mails to a imap sent folder use a filter rule
look here for advice http://kb.nitix.com/1630
I thought those were already being handled correctly. Looks like I've got to look into that too.
at last tell your users that outlook isnt a universal mail client specially with imap and smtp
I know that. You know that, but my clients are certainly not going to accept that as an answer. They'll simply go elsewhere.
Outlook is the client of m$ case in first case and fits to exchanges needs, and only with exchange it offers its workgroup funktions which are from interest in companies
m$ has no interest to make it better work with imap cause , they would loose money if the do so, cause as time goes by , specially smaller companies may find no need to buy expensive windows and exchange servers outlook licences anymore
Preaching to the choir.
advice users to use thunderbird/lightning as better choice
I do. I actually push Thunderbird pretty heavily. Maybe too heavily.
Same goes to apple mail which does serveral funny stuff with imap All these products are formed to make money with the special services m$ and apple provides, they arent meant to be highly compatible to wide spreaded imap,smtp opensoftware servers which mostly very clean coded
We'll I'll have to disagree with you there. I find Mail.app to be a great little program. Mac OS X Server uses Cyrus and Postfix. I've even gone command line to fine tune some spam settings. Now, you can certainly dis-Apple for many other things, but Mail.app works to spec.
Cheers, Jason
Hi Jason,
apple mail works good with imap for users which can configure it ( but users mostly arent good by doing so), but it has a long lists of bugs with imap. look at apple lists about apple mail. This maybe fixed now.
My personal disagree is with their standard folders names for send mail etc, i dont like spaces in default names of imap folders and i dont like this apple unneeded extravagances,
i dont see something at an apple server what cant be done in linux without pay, and i simply dont need a gui on my servers
when i last migrated users to apple mail from pop3 to imap all their mail where mixed up magical with apple mail profiles, seems to be semi automatic here ( but after all ,i am no king on apple use, so maybe it was my fault, but their apple admin was more lost then me, that time *g)
Thunderbird is lightyears better, has lot of plugins and is more near to imap standart. ( for sure tb needs more stuff to gets more spreaded to companies, it misses i.e acl imap )
What i like at apple is their calender solution as client and server but for now lightning is stable enough for a company solution, and is cross platform.
But no need to flame, advanced users will be happy with every good imap client, and apple takes the right way, m$ can only loose
-- Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer
Germany/Munich/Bavaria
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 22:12 -0500, Jason Wohlford wrote:
It seems to me there needs to be two things done. First, a system that
automatically copy a message marked for deletion from one folder (e.g.
INBOX) to a trash folder (e.g. Trash, Deleted Messages, etc.)
Sounds upcoming virtual mailboxes will be useful for this. You could define a virtual Trash mailbox that contains messages in all mailboxes that are marked as \Deleted. Although if \Deleted messages are hidden that probably doesn't help that much since they'd be hidden in Trash as well..
P.S. Sorry for the late (and many) replies. I've been sick and are now
just getting back into the swing of things.
Cheers, Jason
On Apr 14, 2008, at 10:12 PM, Jason Wohlford wrote:
Hi All,
I run a little hosting company. I use Dovecot 1.0.10* with IMAP
exclusively. Lots of my customers use Outlook or Outlook Express.
This poses a problem. These programs don't and have absolutely no
workarounds to move messages to a trash folder when deleted. They
only mark the message for deletion. Then, users have to purge the
message to actually delete it. Outlook has a way to hide deleted
messages and also auto-purge them when moving to a different folder.
That just doesn't cut it. (Thanks Microsoft! :-p )So, I'm thinking Dovecot could pick up where Microsoft left off.
It seems to me there needs to be two things done. First, a system
that automatically copy a message marked for deletion from one
folder (e.g. INBOX) to a trash folder (e.g. Trash, Deleted Messages,
etc.) Dovecot's lazy_expunge might already do this, but I couldn't
quite discern it from the wiki docs. Second, a way to only do this
when Outlook or Outlook Express is the one who is deleting a message.Possibility? Comments?
Cheers, Jason
P.S. Thanks for the great software!
*Yes, I know. I need to upgrade to Dovecot 1.0.13.
-- Jason Wohlford <jason@wohlford.org> <http://wohlford.org>
-- Jason Wohlford <jason@wohlford.org> <http://wohlford.org>
participants (9)
-
bhayden＠umn.edu
-
Bill Cole
-
Charles Marcus
-
Ed W
-
Gerard
-
Jason Wohlford
-
Robert Schetterer
-
Timo Sirainen
-
Uldis Pakuls