On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 02:40:50PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote: > > > > http://www.openchange.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=49 > > Looking around that site, using libmapi doesn't seem to be too > complicated. But requiring samba and libmapi just to read mail?! Yeah that's a bit of a weird requirement... I didn't dig into why Samba was required. > > But before adding another storage backend, I think we should clean up > the existing API a bit... I don't disagree at all... Mainly I was bringing it up because I happened across it for the first time just then, and it's something that (at least some) people have wanted forever. I guessed that you dev types may not have heard of it either, so mentioning it would give you the opportunity to start planning support for it by the time OpenEchange is really ready for prime time. > I also wonder many people actually use this or will potentially, i.e. is > it really worth the work? As for how many people would use it... In the U.S., the prevalence of Exchange Server is annoying, and a lot of IT departments won't turn on IMAP because they only officially support Outlook, which obviously doesn't need IMAP. I've been frustrated by that in the past myself, though at the moment I don't need it. I bet if you asked on mutt-users how many people would use it if it were available, a lot of people would approve... -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Description: PGP signature