Re: Patch: Handle distribution lists on alias expansion

[Toralf Lund <toralf kscanners com>]

On 2001.09.26 00:24 Pawel Salek wrote:
>
>On 2001.09.24 15:37 Toralf Lund wrote:
>>OK, I've now made an alternative (presumably better) implementation, 
>>refer to attached patch. I didn't introduce a new class though, but 
>>merely added another list to LibBalsaAddress, for two reasons:
>
>The implementation is fine, I like it.
>
>And it works amasingly good! At least, the patch passed few tests I have 
>set up (the tests are not complete but cover most common situations).
>
>How do you feel about this patch, do you think yourself it is safe to 
>commit (disregard my opinion)? Or would you like to work on it a little 
>bit more?
Well, there are still open points, I think, but I feel that what's in the 
latest version of the patch is fairly correct and robust, so committing 
the changes should be OK.

There is one problem, though: Balsa doesn't really support RFC2822 groups, 
unlike libmutt. As a temporary workaround, you could do:

     while (address) {
	if (address->mailbox && !address->group) { /* *** For now */
	    addr = libbalsa_address_new_from_libmutt(address);
	    list = g_list_append(list, addr);
	}
	address = address->next;
     }

in libbalsa_address_new_list_from_string()


>
>I think we should have 1.2.1 release soon (by the end of the month) and 
>make sure it is not less stable than 1.2.0. This means addressing all the 
>issues encountered with 1.2.0 so far, whenever possible.
>
>While looking for balsa traces on the net, I found an opinion that balsa 
>is difficult to install. Does anybody share this view? If so, what 
>exactly makes installation difficult?
Hmmm. No, I think it is rather simple. When using RPMs, that is.

The only thing I can think of that would make the process even simpler, is 
to provide a way for system administrators to set up (default) 
configuration for _all_ users, so that they wouldn't even have to use 
"first time" wizard.
--
- Toralf