CVS, Mailman, and HTML
Bill McGonigle
bill at bfccomputing.com
Mon Oct 25 23:56:01 EDT 2004
On Oct 25, 2004, at 13:20, Paul Lussier wrote:
> We have several Outlook users, and have not had any complaints from
> them
> about this setup. Of course, that could be because most of these users
> can't even figure out how to access their own IMAP folder, never mind a
> centrally shared one :)
There's a wonderful 'feature' to Outlook where it sends a command to
the server and _then_ sets up something to listen for the response. If
you have a very fast server and a slower computer the response comes
back before the client is ready to listen. Very useful. Every other
mail client in the world seems to handle this correctly. There's been
some discussion about it on the cyrus list - some people induce load on
their servers; I've got a patch that induces a 20ms delay in the
command response. It's an ugly hack so you don't want it unless you
see "The server has dropped the connection" messages from Outlook.
> Oh, and fwiw, we're also using Kerberos for 'single sign on' as well.
Nice.
> (thought the windows side is lacking in this regard, since Outlook
> offers no GSSAPI option for auth)
Clearly every other mail client has it all wrong. AUTH plain over TLS
via SASL is sort of OK, except Outlook sometimes drops connections via
TLS that it won't w/o TLS. Oh, and its IMAP IDLE implementation is
broken too. Yes, that specification that Microsoft promulgated.
I've come to the conclusion that IMAP in Outlook is broken by design.
There are just too many things wrong, too many specs not followed, and
too much profit motive to not get it right ("Gee, I don't know... why
don't you just use Exchange?").
This is not to say that users are not broken as well.
-Bill
----
Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440
BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668
bill at bfccomputing.com Cell: 603.252.2606
http://www.bfccomputing.com/ Text: bill+text at bfccomputing.com
More information about the gnhlug-discuss
mailing list