[#1834] Gnarwl Support
| Summary | Gnarwl Support |
| Queue | Vacation |
| Queue Version | HEAD |
| Type | Enhancement |
| State | Rejected |
| Priority | 1. Low |
| Owners | |
| Requester | mbydalek (at) compunetconsulting (dot) com |
| Created | 04/20/2005 (1117 days ago) |
| Due | |
| Updated | 11/28/2005 (895 days ago) |
| Assigned | |
| Resolved | 11/28/2005 (895 days ago) |
| Attachments | vacation.gnarwl.tar.gz  |
| Milestone | |
| Patch |
State ⇒ Rejected
No feedback.Any news on this?Gnarwl is an LDAP based autoresponder program. http://www.home.unix-ag.org/patrick/index.php?gnarwl
It's a nice little program imo.
What I can do is go through the Exim to see if there are any Params that I'm missing from my Gnarwl implementation and see if I can combine them to create a flexible LDAP driver.
Out of curiousity, does anything jump out at you in terms of what I should include and may have already missed?
-Mike
State ⇒ Feedback
I agree that we should only have one (more flexible) LDAP driver. If this isn't possible, we should have a basic LDAP driver that the Exim and Gnarwl drivers extend. (What is Gnarwl btw?)
I am not sure if I understand correctly was you said about the vacation status, but it sounds right.
State ⇒ New
Priority ⇒ 1. Low
Type ⇒ Enhancement
Summary ⇒ Gnarwl Support
Queue ⇒ Vacation
New Attachment: vacation.gnarwl.tar.gz
This is basically support for using Gnarwl. A few things to comment about it though:
Basically I took the exim-ldap driver and just tweaked it a little. There were some bugs, etc., but I didn't touch the original exim-ldap since there was a possibility that I could be wrong, and I don't have an Exim install to test it on.
With that being said, perhaps it would be better to just create a single LDAP driver with a lot more config. options for the conf.xml. I'm not all sure what Exim needs to work though, but I'm sure it's something close to what Gnarwl needs.
Additionally, when a person first uses vacation, there is no status bar. Would it be beneficial to state that Vacation is disabled unless we know for sure it's explicitly enabled? The reason I say this is because the application in the backend may be setup correctly, but if their account has a blank slate for the settings, it's technically 'disabled' I guess ...
Just some thoughts.
-Mike