| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Sat May 22 00:00:02 CEST 2010 | ||
| 2010-05-22 00:24 -!- udono(~udono@dynamic-unidsl-85-197-25-116.westend.de) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 03:31 -!- ikks_(~ikks@200.118.243.193) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 04:58 -!- rednul(~rednul@216.187.133.10) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 05:13 -!- rednul(~rednul@216.187.133.10) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 05:20 -!- yangoon(~mathiasb@p549F6C24.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 06:27 -!- mr_amit(~amit@117.254.20.73) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 07:37 -!- rednul(~rednul@216.187.133.10) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 09:18 -!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 09:28 -!- enlightx(~enlightx@host25-74-dynamic.41-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 09:57 -!- eLBati(~elbati@94.160.120.51) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 10:53 -!- mr_amit(~amit@117.254.27.8) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 11:01 -!- Timitos(~timitos@88.217.184.172) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:00 -!- tekknokrat(~lila@188.106.106.113) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:13 -!- mr_amit(~amit@117.254.29.101) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:48 -!- sharoon(~sharoon@opg066b.halls.manchester.ac.uk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:49 <sharoon> hi cedk | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:49 <cedk> sharoon: hi | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:50 <sharoon> cedk: can we discuss the email blueprint and existing implementation | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:50 <cedk> sharoon: first, did you test the trigger implemntation ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:50 <sharoon> cedk: not yet | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:50 <cedk> sharoon: just two minutes, I have a phone call | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:50 <sharoon> cedk: ok, i will prepare an agenda now | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:55 <sharoon> cedk: 1. Splitting of Module | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:55 <sharoon> 2. Accounts configuration - SMTP/IMAP | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:55 <sharoon> 2.a) Company Accounts | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:55 <sharoon> 2.b) Scheduler/Cron | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:55 <sharoon> 3. Mailbox/email queue | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:55 <sharoon> 3.a) What goes into core? | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:55 <sharoon> 3.b) Scheduler/Cron | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:55 <sharoon> 4. Templating | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:55 <sharoon> 4.a) Mako + Django | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:56 <sharoon> 4.b) Genshi? | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:56 <sharoon> 5. Legacy Support? | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:56 <sharoon> 6. IMAP4/SMTP - Twisted ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 13:57 -!- ikks_(~ikks@200.118.243.193) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:00 <cedk> ACTION back | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:01 <cedk> sharoon: I will send an email on mailing list to inform about this talk | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:01 <sharoon> cedk: ok, and we schedule a time? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:01 <cedk> sharoon: as you want | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:01 <cedk> sharoon: it can be now for me | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:01 <sharoon> cedk: ok, we start then after 5 mins from mail | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:02 <cedk> sharoon: ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:05 <cedk> sharoon: send | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:06 <sharoon> cedk: just tweeted about it as well | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:06 <sharoon> cedk: lets start at 14:10 CEST | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:07 <cedk> sharoon: yes it is in the email | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:07 <sharoon> cedk: cool | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:11 <cedk> ok at my clock it is 14:10 | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:11 <sharoon> cedk: i guess its time and we start? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:11 <sharoon> 1. Splitting of Module | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:12 <cedk> I think we should make modules that do one thing | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:12 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:12 <sharoon> so the module needs to be split and we need to decide what goes into what | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:12 <sharoon> and possible sensible names too | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:12 <cedk> like that we can change the behavior easily because you must always think about how to customize the code | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:12 <sharoon> agree | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:13 <cedk> also it is simplier to develop | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:13 <cedk> and to test with unittest | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:13 <sharoon> yep | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:13 <sharoon> ok so what are the modules | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:13 <sharoon> 1. email_queue (core) | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:14 <sharoon> 2. email_configuration | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:14 <sharoon> 3. email_template | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:14 <cedk> for me there is at least 4 concept in poweremail | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:14 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:15 <cedk> - the storage of email | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:15 <cedk> like a maildir | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:15 <sharoon> yep | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:15 <cedk> the storage must be linked to res.user | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:15 <sharoon> can you explain? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:16 <cedk> so there is folders (or tags) linked to a user (or many) and emails are linked to one or many folders | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:16 <sharoon> yes | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:16 <cedk> and folders can have a tree structure | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:16 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:16 <sharoon> folders == IMAP folders ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:17 <cedk> no necessary, we must not think about protocols now | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:17 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:17 <cedk> it could have some special folders | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:17 <cedk> like a folder with sended emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:18 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:18 <cedk> or a folder with new emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:18 <sharoon> Inbox|Archive|Sent|Outbox|Drafts | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:18 <sharoon> i think these could be the only defaults | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:18 <sharoon> rest is user defined | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:18 <cedk> I'm not sure we must fixed the names | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:19 <sharoon> it might be necessary because only mails in queue and with folder outbox will be sent by the cron job | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:19 <cedk> I don't think we need of Archive, Outbox nor Drafts | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:20 <cedk> I'm not agree, this is not how emails are design | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:20 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:20 <sharoon> can you explain? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:20 <cedk> sending email is an other thing and is not linked to the user's folders | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:21 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:21 <cedk> that is why you must define POP/IMAP accounts and also SMTP | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:21 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:21 <cedk> in email clients | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:21 <cedk> and in this module we have only storage functionality | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:21 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:21 <cedk> so it will have only INBOX | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:22 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:22 <cedk> because to store we need to have a default folder | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:22 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:22 <cedk> that is all for the first concept | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:23 <cedk> - second concept: email sending | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:23 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:23 <cedk> sending email means queuing the emails and send it | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:23 <cedk> all emails goes into the same queue | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:24 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:24 <cedk> for the sending, there is 2 possibilities: | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:24 -!- paepke(~paepke@p5B32BDF3.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:24 <cedk> - it forward all to a real email server like postfix, sendmail etc. | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:25 <cedk> - it connect to the dest server and deliver it | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:25 <cedk> I think the second one is a complex task | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:25 <sharoon> second is complex | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:25 <cedk> but we should design the software to be able to do both | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:25 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:25 <sharoon> i think for first version leave only option 1 | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:25 <sharoon> but provision for 2 is left | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:26 <cedk> sharoon: agree | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:26 <sharoon> ok, now to the design | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:26 <cedk> and Tryton has already configuration for a smtp connection | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:27 <sharoon> ah! thats something that needs review | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:27 <sharoon> i think it should be possible for defining email accounts for each database | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:27 <sharoon> and for each user | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:27 <sharoon> if he wishes to | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:27 <cedk> sharoon: what do you call email accounts? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:27 <sharoon> cedk: SMTP/IMAP/POP3 connections | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:28 <cedk> you must not handle SMTP with IMAP/POP | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:28 <sharoon> cedk: nope | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:28 <cedk> this is different purpose | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:28 <sharoon> SMTP and IMAP/POP3 | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:28 <cedk> I think Tryton must choose to always send email with SMTP | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:29 <sharoon> yes, only SMTP is planned to be built | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:29 <sharoon> but are we talkng about the builtin SMTP? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:29 <sharoon> thats set in the config? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:29 <cedk> yes | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:29 <sharoon> i think that may not suffice | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:29 <cedk> I think it is enough | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:30 <sharoon> Reason: the tryton server gets the SMTP settings | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:30 <sharoon> not the database | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:30 <cedk> sharoon: what is the case you think it is not enough, I will explain how to do it :-) | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:30 <sharoon> so if a Tryton using organisation has multiple companies in separate databases but same server then it will not be possible to use their preferred acoount | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:31 <sharoon> for example: you have both b2ck.com and tryton.org address | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:31 <sharoon> and assume that both are two companies | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:31 <sharoon> if you want to use these accounts then you need to have two instances of server right? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:32 <cedk> sharoon: what do you name accounts ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:32 <sharoon> ACTION am i missing something | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:32 <sharoon> accounts are email accounts | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:32 <cedk> sharoon: what is email accounts ? :-) | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:32 <sharoon> a@b2ck.com and c@tryton.org are two accounts | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:32 <cedk> sharoon: no it is 2 addresses | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:33 <cedk> I think you want to express the fact that you want to use 2 different SMTP outgoing server per domain | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:33 <cedk> am I right | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:33 <sharoon> cedk: lets use a common tool for reference | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:33 <sharoon> cedk: lets use the lingua of evolution or thunderbird | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:34 <sharoon> cedk: whichever u prefer because it makes it easy and common for everybody (even non techies) to understand | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:34 <cedk> sharoon: if you want but both application doesn't show you how emails are processed | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:35 <sharoon> cedk: that was for the lingua | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:35 <sharoon> cedk: like 'accounts' and 'addresses' | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:35 <cedk> common email configuration in companies are one domain with one smtp server | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:35 <sharoon> cedk: that suffices for common job like... in django we use it for sending crash reports etc | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:36 <sharoon> cedk: but to actually send emails companies and users prefer to use either personal accounts | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:36 <cedk> sharoon: if you refer to thunderbird accounts is only IMAP/POP and SMTP is a separated configuration | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:36 <sharoon> ACTION thunderbird is now the official reference for lingua | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:36 <cedk> sharoon: I still don't understand why you talk about personal accounts for email sending | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:37 <cedk> sharoon: you could have authentication for SMTP connection but that is all | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:37 <sharoon> cedk: in our company, we have two people for support | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:38 <cedk> you don't require to have an 'email account' (thunderbird def) to send emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:39 <cedk> sharoon: ok, and I'm pretty sure that they use the same SMTP server | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:39 <sharoon> yes, but with authentication | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:39 <cedk> sharoon: because they connect to it from PC, but here it is the Tryton server that will connect to it and that need to be authenticated | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:40 <sharoon> cedk: but two different domain? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:41 <cedk> sharoon: that is not a problem with a good configuration of the smtp server | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:41 <sharoon> can you explain? how do you configure smtp to talk to two different servers? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:41 <cedk> sharoon: you must know that the FROM in email is not linked to the authentication on the SMTP server | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:41 <cedk> sharoon: don't understand last question | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:42 <sharoon> cedk: for example assume that a company uses google apps (like we use) | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:43 <cedk> sharoon: bad :-) | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:43 <sharoon> cedk: then one db will connect to smtp.gmail.com with the authentication of individual user | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:43 <sharoon> cedk: agree on the bad ;) | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:43 <cedk> sharoon: what is the domain ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:44 <cedk> sharoon: gmail.com or custom one ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:44 <sharoon> cedk: openlabs.co.in | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:44 <paepke> cedk, disagree: from in email could be linked to an authenticated user. from could be rewritten or the mail could be dropped. its not common in the wild, but i know some setups. | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:44 <sharoon> that is the factor with SMTP servers with authentication | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:44 <cedk> sharoon: according to dig -t TXT openlabs.co.in you can send email with FROM *@openlabs.co.in from any server | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:45 <sharoon> ACTION disastrous! | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:46 <cedk> paepke: yes, you can customize your SMTP server to do any thing but this is configuration | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:46 <cedk> paepke: but you must configure your SMTP server to work with your applications | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:46 <sharoon> cedk: when a company owns the SMTP server then its fine | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:47 <sharoon> cedk: what if it doesnt? as with many cases | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:47 <paepke> cedk, i agree with sharoon. | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:47 <cedk> sharoon: smtp server cost nothing to install on the same host than Tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:48 <sharoon> cedk: but that introduces a new change in an organisation for nothing worth it | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:48 <sharoon> cedk: and additional headache if they use hosted | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:49 <sharoon> cedk: hosted mail service or exchange etc | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:49 <Timitos> cedk: i also agree with sharoon | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:50 <cedk> ok, I will explain my big plan :-) | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:51 <cedk> my vision of emails in Tryton is: | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:51 <cedk> to store all user emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:51 <cedk> but not send it | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:51 <cedk> sending will be done by the email client of the user | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:52 <cedk> (with his own "email account" | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:52 <cedk> so Tryton doesn't require to know the "email account" of users as it will not send emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:53 <cedk> this way, we will have all the emails of a company stored in Tryton then we could process it | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:53 <sharoon> cedk: i think it will be bad design because, it has the current problem with the Open ERP thunderbird interface.... when everything becomes hosted & cloud based, we should not base designs on applications like a desktop email client. Also this has disadvantages when a web client is used and access could be from anywhere? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:53 <cedk> like link it to party (for crm case) | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:54 <cedk> sharoon: if you want email client in web interface then you can go for software like horde etc. | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:54 <Timitos> cedk: what about email that will be created by the tryton server like a confirmation email? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:55 <cedk> sharoon: and I don't say to use something like thunderbird OpenERP interface | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:55 <cedk> sharoon: it will work out of the box for any email client (with IMAP support) | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:55 <paepke> cedk, so sending an invoice via email would mean that the user has to be in front of the computer and pressing the "send" button in tryton to pop up the mail client and press there send, too? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:55 <cedk> Timitos: then it is an email sended by the Tryton server so it will use Tryton server account | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:55 <cedk> Timitos: define in the configuration | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:56 -!- saxa(~sasa@host242-95-static.223-217-b.business.telecomitalia.it) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:56 <sharoon> cedk: but the question remain in such a design: how do you send from different accounts | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:56 <cedk> paepke: it depends of what you name sending an invoice via email | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:56 <sharoon> cedk: that is currently possible with the print and email as well right? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:56 <cedk> paepke: if you talk about an automatic process then it is the server jobs | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:56 <Timitos> cedk: what about a multidatabase solution? maybe i do need two different mailservers. | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:57 <sharoon> cedk: what Timitos has said is according to me the biggest bad in such a design | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:57 <cedk> paepke: if you talk about salesman sending an invoice then it is with the salesman email client | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:57 <sharoon> cedk: what about automatic emails? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:57 <cedk> sharoon: print-send yes | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:57 <sharoon> cedk: it actually becomes a manual email then? | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:57 <cedk> Timitos: no one server can be configured to handle both | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:58 <cedk> sharoon: automatic emails are sent by Tryton server with Tryton server account | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:58 <paepke> cedk, yes (salesmen). but its preferrable to have even in automated invoices the sender adress of the responsible salesman. not a standard no-reply@tryton.local | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:59 <sharoon> cedk: thats a major major requirement! | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:59 <cedk> paepke: yes but it can be set with the X-REPLY-TO | ||
| 2010-05-22 14:59 <cedk> sharoon: what? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:00 <sharoon> cedk: can you explain how it happens in the case of some service like exchange or google apps | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:00 <sharoon> ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:00 <cedk> sharoon: ok, but first the goal is to replace such services | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:00 <Timitos> cedk: there are cases where such configurations with one server for different domains make the risk to see the email as spam. | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:01 <sharoon> Timitos: agree on that! i had faced the issue | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:01 <cedk> Timitos: no, you must configure your domain correctly | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:01 <sharoon> cedk: especially google treats it as spam | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:01 <cedk> sharoon: give me the example and I will give you how to deal with it | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:01 <Timitos> cedk: there a configurations on the net that do not allow this. many small companies will be not able to do these configurations | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:01 <cedk> sharoon: dig -t TXT b2ck.com | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:02 <cedk> Timitos: I'm not sure | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:02 <Timitos> cedk: not every provider allows configration of MX-Records | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:02 <cedk> Timitos: if they own an domain | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:02 <paepke> cedk, does that x-reply-to overwrite the "from" in the mail client? i don't think so. it will look disgusting to the recipient. | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:02 <sharoon> cedk: the issue if we design assuming the companies which are going to use tryton to be this complex using their own mail servers and configuring them for a typical 5-10 user company? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:02 <cedk> Timitos: it is not the MX records | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:03 <cedk> paepke: reply-to will make the reply goes to this address | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:03 <sharoon> cedk: i guess every company will need people with ur know-how and knowledge to use the system | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:03 <sharoon> cedk: i guess we should make it as simple as possible | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:03 <Timitos> cedk: there are also other problems | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:04 <paepke> cedk, yes, i know how that works, but it will not look like the mail was from the guy is responsible for you. it will be from an automated system. not good. | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:04 <cedk> sharoon: it will work for almost all configurations | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:04 <sharoon> cedk: but it needs a genius like u to configure ;) | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:04 <cedk> sharoon: no | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:05 <cedk> sharoon: did your internet provide give you a SMTP server ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:05 <cedk> paepke: the best is to setup the FROM with the right addresses, but you talked about a special configuration where the SMTP server will rewrite the FROM | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:06 <sharoon> cedk: no! | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:06 <sharoon> i use google apps because it makes life easy and my company everybody uses android! | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:06 <sharoon> am sure there are many companies out there who do that too | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:06 <sharoon> no small size business (non IT) company will have such a setup | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:07 <sharoon> they might already have something like hosted outlook, google apps or something like that | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:07 <cedk> sharoon: I'm pretty sure the google doesn't override the FROM in SMTP server | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:07 <sharoon> cedk: you get to send a mail using that user only if u login to smtp.gmail.com using the username and password | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:08 <cedk> sharoon: yes but you can create a user on google for Tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:09 <cedk> other thing important: if you want Tryton store account information for all users then you must store password in clear in the database | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:09 <cedk> this is a really big security issue | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:09 <cedk> one place with all password of every body | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:11 <Timitos> i do not think that it is possible to store passwords of all users. but i think it will be needed to define smtp servers by database | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:12 <cedk> Timitos: why ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:12 <Timitos> cedk: FYI: if you mean SPF. there are also many providers that will not allow any configuration of this. and these are especially the big ones | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:12 <sharoon> cedk: password access by read should be crapped | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:13 <sharoon> cedk: password access should be allowed only by browse | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:13 <cedk> Timitos: dyndns for 15$/year | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:13 <Timitos> and many small companies are hosting their domains there | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:13 <cedk> sharoon: this is not the issue | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:13 <sharoon> cedk: we cant ask users to change email accounts they used for years | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:13 <sharoon> ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:13 <cedk> sharoon: storing clear text password in database is bad | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:14 <sharoon> cedk: I agree on that | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:14 <Timitos> cedk: i do not see how dyndns should solve this issue | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:14 <paepke> cedk, two other things (have to go for half an hour): sending big mails (like reports, results or pictures) will lead to download the full mail to the client and send it again back to somewhere else. on a slow internet connection this would be horrible for the user. | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:14 <cedk> Timitos: emails are linked to domain | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:14 <paepke> cedk, another thing you should think about is email-filtering on server side. like sieve or procmail. | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:14 <cedk> Timitos: if you transfert your domain to dyndns you will be able to customize dns records | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:14 <sharoon> cedk: also the idea becomes impossible in future where we talk about hosted web client and mobile client | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:15 <cedk> paepke: you assume that Tryton server is on internet with a slow connection how could you work on that | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:15 <Timitos> cedk: yes. but i cannot let our customers wait for 1 year to get a working solution because they cannot transfer their domain because of strict contracts | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:16 <cedk> paepke: agree on email filtering by will come in other topics | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:16 <sharoon> cedk: its not a good idea to have too many changes | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:16 <cedk> Timitos: leave the customer | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:16 <sharoon> cedk: according to gartner... changes cause 60% failures in information system implementations | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:16 <cedk> Timitos: you will have always bad stuffs with such customer | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:16 <sharoon> cedk: every user to organisation will be resistant to change | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:17 <cedk> sharoon: excactly, my design will change any thing to users bahavior | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:18 <sharoon> cedk: i dont think its a global solution because more and more users are shifting from desktop based solutions to hosted apps | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:18 <cedk> Timitos: and I think you can transfert domain but you will still need to pay the previous one for one year | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:18 <Timitos> cedk: i know a provider where this will be not really possible. | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:18 <cedk> sharoon: ok, if you give your information to outside and don't want to change how could you get it back | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:19 <cedk> Timitos: that is a bad provider and should not work with it | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:19 <Timitos> cedk: but i understand your strategy better now. | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:19 <sharoon> Ok i think i have a solution to this problem | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:19 <Timitos> cedk: yes. if i would have known the customers when they did their decision this is clear | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:19 <sharoon> ACTION One possible solution | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:20 <Timitos> cedk: but unfortunately there are some other people that do things i would not do | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:20 <cedk> Timitos: you can do nothing with such customer until he leave his previous IT provider | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:20 <sharoon> let tryton just like now have the default emailing SMTP feature and the mailbox | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:20 <sharoon> thats just what we have now | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:21 <sharoon> but, lets have a separate module where the user can configure his own accounts and the email queue will be overridden by that mdoule | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:21 <Timitos> cedk: i cannot always wait for the perfect customer ;-) but maybe i can help some to be. | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:22 <cedk> sharoon: for you google issue, you can still put a postfix on Tryton host, and write transfert rule base on from to relay to google smtp with the right account | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:22 <sharoon> cedk: Greek & Latin | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:22 <sharoon> cedk: and we ususally have painful administrators who are third party IT support people who will screw our implementatin for nothing if we say this | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:22 <cedk> Timitos: yes, but you can not sale some thing that you can not do | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:23 <sharoon> cedk: i guess tryton should not be a deciding factor for the email service etc | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:23 <sharoon> cedk: already when there are popular protocols like IMAP/POP3 & SMTP to do anythign we want in email | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:23 <cedk> sharoon: it is not required to use email with Tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:23 <Timitos> cedk: only when your concept of tryton is too strict to 'the only right way' | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:24 <cedk> Timitos: there is always a solution | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:24 <sharoon> cedk: I think we should assume .... We dont get a text book customer who has done everything right | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:24 <sharoon> cedk: if he has everything right then he doesnt need us | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:24 <Timitos> so i pointed out my opinion on this. it is all i can do. | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:25 <sharoon> cedk: Shall we have a vote on this point | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:25 <sharoon> ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:25 <cedk> sharoon: if you want but there will be vote on some point | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:25 <cedk> s/vote/veto/ | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:25 <sharoon> Proposition 1: | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:25 <cedk> like clear text password storage | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:26 <sharoon> cedk, whether we store password in a db or python file, it has the same effect according to me | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:26 <sharoon> somebody who has access to server has both | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:26 <cedk> sharoon: yes but only for one account not for accounts of every employee | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:27 <cedk> sharoon: especially the google account where I suppose you also store docs and sheets | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:27 <sharoon> cedk: if you want to send mail from employee account then username and password MUST be stored somewhere | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:27 <cedk> sharoon: perhaps also google apps etc. | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:27 <cedk> sharoon: and I don't want to send email from employee | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:28 <sharoon> cedk: i think its more of an organisational choice | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:28 <cedk> sharoon: no employees must send their own emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:28 <Timitos> sharoon: is there no possibility to send emails from employee with authentication of another? like a company account? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:28 <sharoon> cedk: thats why organisations have emails for employees! i think we should make it flexible for the company which has their policies | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:29 <sharoon> cedk: Timitos: its possible | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:29 <cedk> sharoon: otherwise you have the case where employee receive email answer to email that he doesn't know he sended | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:29 <sharoon> Timitos: my argument is: the same tradeoff exists if password is stored in DB or py file | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:29 <sharoon> cedk: in your case where employees dont need emails only configure one account | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:29 <sharoon> no-reply@tryton.local | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:30 <sharoon> same tradeoff | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:30 <sharoon> only one account | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:30 <sharoon> accessible to all | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:30 <Timitos> sharoon: yes. but maybe it is not needed to store all accounts | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:30 <sharoon> Timitos: agree | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:30 <sharoon> its not needed to store all accounts | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:30 <cedk> once again, sending email is not linked to email account !!! | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:31 <sharoon> cedk: IT IS for many accounts like the google apps and hosted exchange | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:31 <Timitos> cedk: yes. i know. but it dependes on the configuration of the provider. some will reject emails that are authenticated by another account | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:32 <sharoon> cedk: we should allow user to use what he already has. | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:32 <cedk> Ok we will never have something that works with all crappy configuration | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:32 <cedk> and we must not encourage bad design | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:33 <sharoon> google apps is not bad design (though it is) | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:33 <sharoon> we cant say google is wrong? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:33 <cedk> sharoon: I don't say that | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:33 <Timitos> cedk: sorry. but a configuration like hosted exchange and google apps should be not seen as crappy. these configurations are fact and we should be able to handle them | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:33 <cedk> sharoon: it is not required to use smtp of google to send your emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:33 <sharoon> cedk: can you explain? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:33 <cedk> Timitos: I don't talk about that | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:34 <Timitos> cedk: why not? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:34 <cedk> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smtp | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:34 <Timitos> cedk: why do you not talk about that? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:34 <cedk> Timitos: bad design is domain that you can not customize | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:35 <cedk> I will make a brief history of email | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:35 <cedk> SMTP is a protocol that allow server to communicate and exchange emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:36 <Timitos> cedk: but you cannot be always against others. if we will only do it one way there will be many potential customers we will be not able to serve | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:36 <cedk> any server can communicate with any server | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:36 <Timitos> cedk: i know smtp. this is not the problem. the problem is how it is used today | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:36 <cedk> Timitos: it is used the same way | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:37 <Timitos> cedk: but with some restrictions in many cases | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:37 <cedk> Timitos: no | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:37 <Timitos> cedk: and i do not think that it is good not to look on how it is used today | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:37 <sharoon> cedk: "Modern SMTP servers typically use a client's credentials (authentication) rather than a client's location (IP address), to determine whether it is eligible to relay e-mail." | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:37 <sharoon> cedk: says wikipedia | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:38 <cedk> sharoon: that is not the subject | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:38 <Timitos> cedk: ok. so there no more discussion necessary as you have your point and we will be not able to find a conclusion except yours | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:38 <cedk> Timitos: no, I think you don't know how emails work | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:39 <sharoon> cedk: to be frank, i think all my existing customers who are funding the email module needs google apps (and they wont change) and they need sending from company mail accounts from two different databses | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:39 <sharoon> cedk: so i think i will have to build a separate module to meet that | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:40 <cedk> sharoon: I already said this is possible with one smtp | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:40 <sharoon> while the standard parts that need to go into official base may accomodate this design of best practise u propose | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:40 <Timitos> cedk: i understand the configuration you suggest. the only thing i do not agree is that it will always work. | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:40 <cedk> Timitos: only if you have access to your domain | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:40 <cedk> Timitos: which must be something that you own | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:41 <cedk> Timitos: otherwise you have been steal | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:41 <Timitos> cedk: yes. but sorry for this. this is for small companies not always the fact because they made mistakes in past. | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:41 <Timitos> cedk: they own it but they do not have all possibilites of configuration | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:42 <cedk> Timitos: from the web interface, but I'm pretty sure with a phone call you can have what you want | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:42 <Timitos> cedk: no. i know that | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:42 <sharoon> cedk: can u explain how u will handle my case? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:42 <cedk> sharoon: setup an smtp server on the Tryton server that will send emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:43 <sharoon> cedk: lol, that doesnt show in the sent mail history or search results of my client's mailbox | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:44 <sharoon> in google apps | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:44 <cedk> sharoon: mail history is not set by the smtp server but by the email client | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:45 <sharoon> cedk: if the mail gets sent through the email account, only then it gets logged in sent mail | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:46 <Timitos> sharoon: i think you will need to do base modules without the possibility to send throught the employee accounts and to put another module on top to add this possibility. | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:46 <sharoon> Timitos: +1 | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:46 <sharoon> cedk: i think that's the best design | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:47 <Timitos> sharoon: the base ones will be part of the tryton framework (i hope so) and the other one will be a custom one | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:47 <sharoon> tryton will then stick to best practices while still allowing the user to use his config but at the risk | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:47 <Timitos> sharoon: yes | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:48 <cedk> sharoon: did you receive the email I send with your email addresses ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:48 <sharoon> cedk: I guess that ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:48 <sharoon> cedk: it went to spam | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:49 <cedk> sharoon: by the way, as emails are stored in Tryton and Tryton send it, he can put it in the send folder | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:49 <cedk> sharoon: of course because DNS is not completly well configured | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:49 <cedk> sharoon: but it is doable | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:49 <sharoon> cedk: advice me how to block that though | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:49 <sharoon> ;) | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:49 <cedk> sharoon: and also it is suspicious to have email with same from and to | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:50 <cedk> sharoon: ok after the talk | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:50 <sharoon> ok, next topic | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:50 <cedk> but the demonstration was that it is possible to send email linked to gmail from other server | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:51 <cedk> without having the account informations | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:51 <sharoon> but cedk it gave me this link instead of ur mail | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:51 <sharoon> http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&answer=50200 | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:52 <sharoon> ACTION conclusions so far | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:52 <cedk> sharoon: ok this is because I send it with same from and to | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:52 <cedk> sharoon: I could do it with an other email addresses if you want | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:52 <sharoon> ACTION Tryton will have an email queue built into the server to which emails can be pushed with all required header tags | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:53 <sharoon> ACTION tryton builtin SMTP will push emails from this | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:53 <cedk> sharoon: not builtin SMTP | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:53 <sharoon> cedk: ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:53 <sharoon> builtin SMTP client | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:54 <cedk> sharoon: queue will be empty by using configured smtp server | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:54 <sharoon> same | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:54 <sharoon> lingua! | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:54 <cedk> sharoon: for me builtin SMTP means writing smtp server | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:54 <sharoon> anyway and a custom module will be implemented for the purpose of custom configs with clear warning of security | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:55 <sharoon> using the custom module would mean disabling the builtin SMTP "client" in python of tryton and using custom configs to push mails | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:55 <sharoon> ACTION next topic is templating | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:56 <cedk> I think we should use genshi | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:56 <cedk> because already use in relatorio | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:56 <sharoon> I agree on that because its already a dependency | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:56 <cedk> so it doesn't bring new dependency | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:57 <sharoon> but the bigger picture is how to integrate with triggers because templates are what decides the triggers as well | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:57 <cedk> and if the code is well writen, it will be possible to add other templating with external modules | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:57 <sharoon> cedk: agree on that | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:58 <cedk> before talking of trigger, I want to talk about template storage | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:58 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:59 <cedk> I think template email must be stored with the same model than email | ||
| 2010-05-22 15:59 <cedk> because it will allow to design email with the email client | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:00 <sharoon> cedk: not really sure | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:00 <sharoon> cedk: because how do we handle reports as attachments | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:00 <Timitos> cedk: can you explain this a little bit more? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:00 <cedk> sharoon: attachments can be added on the fly | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:01 <sharoon> cedk: in automatic? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:01 <sharoon> cedk: when PO is confirmed send automatic mail to x-user | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:02 <cedk> there is two things: | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:02 <cedk> - the template | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:02 <cedk> - the rule | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:02 <sharoon> cedk: the rule is handled by trigger | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:03 <cedk> the template is just the email data | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:03 <cedk> sharoon: why not | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:04 <cedk> sharoon: ok agree, the module must extend ir.trigger | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:04 <sharoon> cedk: no | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:04 <cedk> sharoon: why? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:04 <sharoon> the trigger when triggered calls the template render method for the corresponding ID and the mail is rendered for the corresponding active id given by trigger | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:05 <sharoon> the rendered mail is pushed into the queue and the process is done | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:05 <cedk> sharoon: yes | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:06 <sharoon> the render includes | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:06 <sharoon> - rendering the email id: ro, cc, bcc, subject, mail body | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:06 <sharoon> - multipart objects - attachments | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:06 <sharoon> in manual mode the render is done and the create mail is shown to the user | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:06 <cedk> ACTION still agree | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:07 <sharoon> so the user can modify the mail... | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:08 <sharoon> in the list view it should be possible to create multiple emails as well | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:08 <sharoon> select 5 invoices and action->Send reminder | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:08 <sharoon> the mails should be generated and pushed to queue | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:09 <cedk> sharoon: the example is not very good, because an report will do the work | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:09 -!- tekknokrat(~lila@188.106.106.113) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:09 <sharoon> cedk: can you explain | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:09 <cedk> sharoon: create a report reminder on invoice, and right click on the report button to send as attachment | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:10 <sharoon> cedk: fine... but the point i am trying to make is the templates have to be a separate model where the values have to be stored | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:11 <cedk> sharoon: don't understand | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:11 <cedk> template must store nothing | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:11 <sharoon> cedk: please explain | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:11 <cedk> template is a template | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:11 <cedk> I don't know how to explain what is a template | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:12 <sharoon> ok let me do that | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:12 <cedk> so it is an email where some part (define by markup) must be substitued when rendered | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:13 <cedk> like odt file of report are template to generate odt file | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:13 <sharoon> a template is some templating engine (genshi) based tool is used to generate the email | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:13 <sharoon> - for example subject - it could be Your order ${object.reference} has been processed | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:13 -!- tekknokrat(~lila@188.106.106.113) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:13 <sharoon> - example mail body | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:14 <sharoon> Hello ${object.party.name or 'Customer'}, | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:14 <sharoon> We thank you for your order. | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:14 <sharoon> Thanks | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:14 <sharoon> ${context.user.name} | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:15 <sharoon> so rendering the template will first render these | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:15 <sharoon> then it will generate the reports that were to be created | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:15 <sharoon> and add it to the mime/multipart message | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:15 <sharoon> and the email.message object is passed on to the create method of email queue | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:16 <cedk> yes | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:17 <cedk> but what is the reason to not store template as an email | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:17 <sharoon> it will have lot many more fields than an email would have | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:18 <sharoon> email will be a subset of template | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:18 <cedk> sharoon: which one? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:19 <sharoon> cedk: example: a field builder based fields, report many2many, allowed users, attached trigeer ets | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:19 <sharoon> etc | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:19 <cedk> sharoon: it is on the rule | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:19 <sharoon> cedk: field builder? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:20 <cedk> it is the same desing then for report | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:20 <cedk> ir.action.report and odt files | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:20 <sharoon> cedk: kind of | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:20 <cedk> sharoon: field builder is because you think about writing template in Tryton client, but for me it must be done on email client | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:21 <sharoon> but with extra fields for to, cc, bcc, subject, reply to etc | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:21 <cedk> sharoon: from, to, cc, etc are in emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:21 <sharoon> cedk: and how do you do it in email client? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:21 <cedk> sharoon: click new email, write it and save it in special folder | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:22 <sharoon> cedk: thats again on a local desktop | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:22 <cedk> you will have a real email editor | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:22 <cedk> sharoon: go on your web email client, click new email, write it and save it in special folder | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:23 <sharoon> cedk: got u | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:23 <cedk> it is the same as email folders are in Tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:23 <sharoon> cedk: and how do you attach it to triggers? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:24 <cedk> sharoon: assume that ir.trigger have some more fields added by email template module | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:24 <cedk> sharoon: so it will have a many2one to an email stored (flagged) as a template | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:25 <cedk> but I don't know yet if it must be extended or inherited | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:25 <sharoon> cedk: got it, but it should have one more filter that the trigger model and template model must be same? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:25 <cedk> with inherit we will be able to create a custom view | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:26 <sharoon> cedk: i think inherit is better | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:26 <sharoon> cedk: i guess inheriting email will also be necessary | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:26 <cedk> sharoon: why? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:26 <sharoon> cedk: normal emails in queue have no model? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:27 <sharoon> cedk: no template builder either | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:27 -!- udono(~udono@dynamic-unidsl-85-197-25-116.westend.de) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:28 <cedk> sharoon: don't understand why you talk about email queue | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:29 <cedk> model of template will be define on rule | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:30 <sharoon> there will many templates in the template folder | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:30 <cedk> ir.trigger inherited -> email.rule with all fields you had in poweremail | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:30 <cedk> + a many2one -> email | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:31 <cedk> sharoon: yes, you must choose the one you want | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:31 <sharoon> fine.. looks good | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:31 <cedk> perhaps we could create subfolder by email.rule | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:31 <sharoon> and whats the structure of email.queue? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:33 <cedk> params of http://docs.python.org/library/smtplib.html#smtplib.SMTP.sendmail | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:34 <sharoon> and how do you record if an email has been sent? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:35 <cedk> + state field | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:35 <cedk> or better active boolean | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:35 <sharoon> better | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:35 <sharoon> and how do we relate email.queue to email | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:36 <cedk> sharoon: we don't | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:36 <cedk> we should not implement IMAP sending email | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:37 <sharoon> fine... sounds ok so far | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:37 <sharoon> ACTION next topic: Email reception | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:37 <cedk> sharoon: normally, it was legacy support | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:37 <sharoon> cedk: missed it in the accounts section | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:38 <cedk> so for me, Tryton must become the storage place of emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:39 <sharoon> cedk: It should be possible to recieve mails, store them in tryton and link them to other objects like attachments | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:39 <cedk> the best way is to configure the smtp reciever server to store emails in Tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:39 <cedk> for that a procmail like script is ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:39 <sharoon> cedk: please!!!! dont get on to modifying servers | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:40 <cedk> I'm speaking of the best practice | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:40 <sharoon> cedk: for that you have to keep modifying code everytime | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:40 <sharoon> cedk: best practice : No doubt | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:40 <sharoon> cedk: usability: big questions | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:40 <cedk> Tryton should promote best practice | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:41 <sharoon> cedk: should promote... not constrain | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:41 <cedk> sharoon: there is no constraint | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:41 <sharoon> can you explain how it will work with procmail | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:42 <cedk> sharoon: it is not with procmail but with a python script that does the same job as procmail | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:42 <sharoon> cedk: thats the same what i said but the script should not be hardcoded | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:42 <cedk> smtp servers need to have a way to store emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:42 <sharoon> cedk: forget servers, i am talking about fetching emails by POP3 or IMAP | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:43 <cedk> for POP this will be the same | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:43 <sharoon> cedk let me explain my idea | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:43 <cedk> just instead of having postfix calling procmail like script, it will be an other script that fecth email | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:44 <cedk> for IMAP, I don't see the goals as IMAP by default leave emails on the server which is not what we want as Tryton is the default storage place for email | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:45 <sharoon> whats the problem in leaving mails in server? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:45 <sharoon> i dont understand | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:45 <cedk> sharoon: duplicated data | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:45 <sharoon> well IMAP was designed for that purpose | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:45 <cedk> except if you will write a synchronize script | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:45 <sharoon> cedk: not needed | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:46 <sharoon> cedk: IMAP gives read unread info and servers maintain ID of mails | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:46 <cedk> sharoon: the purpose of IMAP is to leave email on the server side and fetch it on demand | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:46 <sharoon> cedk: i already implemented this for poweremail and it works. i see no reason it shoudl not work here | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:47 <cedk> sharoon: synchronisation because if you move emails or read it then you should push back the info to the IMAP server | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:47 <sharoon> cedk: its possible to do that, say on read | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:48 <cedk> sharoon: first, you must not set email as readed as soon as the real user did not read it | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:48 <cedk> sharoon: but it can work if you use IMAP as POP | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:48 <cedk> sharoon: fetchone and remove/leave it | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:49 <sharoon> cedk: ok, thats upto the user | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:49 <sharoon> lets not talk protocols, it more important to first set the reception | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:49 <sharoon> emails are stored within the email | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:49 <cedk> so the procmail script will create an email record | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:49 <sharoon> i dont understand the need of an external procmail script | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:50 <cedk> because it is postfix that call it | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:50 <cedk> it is better to have push then pull | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:51 <sharoon> i dont know, then this will also be an extra addon | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:51 <sharoon> because hardcoding to some script which you then set as cron in the system environment according to me is extra pain while not needed | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:52 <sharoon> i dont see a bad practice in fetching mail with the python library | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:52 <cedk> sharoon: I don't say that | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:52 <cedk> I said it is better to have push the pull | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:52 <cedk> so you cron example is a pull design | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:52 <sharoon> yes | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:53 <cedk> with postfix it will be a push design because script will be called at email reception | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:54 <sharoon> why is pull a bad design? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:54 <cedk> for POP, I don't know well the protocol so it will perhaps be a pull in a cron | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:54 <sharoon> with postfix how do you set the usernames password etc | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:54 <sharoon> thats too much configuration | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:54 <cedk> for IMAP, you can keep the connection up and server will push you new emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:55 <cedk> sharoon: which username and password? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:56 <sharoon> credentials to fetch emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:56 <cedk> sharoon: postfix no credentials | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:56 <sharoon> google apps? | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:56 <cedk> sharoon: with POP and IMAP, of course it is required | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:56 <cedk> sharoon: but you can not do in any otherway except if you can have a master user/password | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:57 <sharoon> cedk: that is only possible for your kind of ppl... not simple users and organisations | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:57 <cedk> again here is the best practice, you could write your own module that will pull emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:57 <sharoon> cedk: so that concludes it | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:57 <sharoon> ACTION legacy support | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:58 <cedk> sharoon: email object need to have a generic income method that any pull/push code will call to store new emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:58 <cedk> this method just need to get the data of the email | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:59 -!- eLBati(~elbati@94.160.71.162) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:59 <cedk> it will parse the to, cc value to create all the emails and put it into the INBOX | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:59 <sharoon> cedk: i think email also should have in addition to create a create_from_email where an email/message as received can be passed | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:59 <sharoon> the function should parse the mail and read it | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:59 <sharoon> so we stick to the standards | ||
| 2010-05-22 16:59 <cedk> sharoon: yes that is the income method I told | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:00 <cedk> but here is the big question: | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:00 <cedk> how do we store emails with many to or cc | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:00 <cedk> shall we create one email per addresses or only one email | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:01 <sharoon> char fields have no limit right? | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:01 <cedk> yes | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:01 <sharoon> so no issue | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:01 <cedk> but I don't see the link with the question | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:01 <sharoon> collon or comma separated | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:01 <cedk> sharoon: I think you don't understand the question | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:02 <sharoon> ACTION absent minded! | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:02 <sharoon> cedk: please say | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:02 <sharoon> i missed the point i guess | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:02 <cedk> you receive an email with many to receipt (you and your colleague) | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:02 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:02 <cedk> so how Tryton will stire this email | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:02 <cedk> one copy per user ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:03 <cedk> or one copy and link it to INBOX of each one | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:03 <sharoon> if my account is configured to recieve mail i receive one | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:03 <sharoon> if he has not configured he doesnt receive any | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:03 <sharoon> if he also has confgured he gets a copy as well | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:03 <sharoon> so its nothing to do with to, cc & bcc | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:03 <cedk> sharoon: this is because of your bad design :-) with gmail | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:04 <cedk> but we can find that we receive duplicate emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:04 <cedk> same copy | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:05 <cedk> so if we make some rules to link it to party or crm case etc. we will have duplicate email on those records | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:05 <sharoon> cedk: i told you u guys are genius,but there are not many out there and certainly my customers dont employ them ;) | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:05 <cedk> and it will not reflect the reality | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:05 <sharoon> cedk: we wont have personal accounts related to crm | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:05 <sharoon> cedk: it will be one account like sales@tryton.local that will be there | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:05 <cedk> sharoon: customer always send with people in cc | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:06 <cedk> sharoon: to be sure to receive it | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:06 <sharoon> cedk: but it doesnt generate duplicate records because ny personal mail is not attached to crm | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:06 <sharoon> cedk: but sure it creates duplicate emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:06 <cedk> sharoon: the goal is to have all communication (emails) of the company in one place | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:07 <cedk> where we could make data mining | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:07 <cedk> and so duplicates data will make data mining less efficient | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:07 <sharoon> cedk: lol, then every account has to be configured with credentials | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:08 <cedk> so I think the income method should check if the same email was not received | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:08 <sharoon> cedk: that goes against your initial argument | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:08 <cedk> sharoon: I don't understand why you talk about credentials | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:08 <sharoon> cedk: normal users will need pull, not push | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:09 <cedk> sharoon: normal users doesn't care of pull or push (it is only dev stuffs to keep the server load low) | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:11 <sharoon> anyway, i cannot implement this with popular mail services | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:11 <cedk> sharoon: why? | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:11 <sharoon> which normal customers seem to use | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:12 <sharoon> its extra mainteinance, and administration costs | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:12 <sharoon> so i think this remains separate | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:12 <cedk> sharoon: about what are you talking? | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:14 <sharoon> cedk: i dont think a script like procmail is easy to maintain + i dont see the overload that will be there in duplicate mails.. some simple de-duplication could be done, but again that could be future releases | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:14 <sharoon> my first priority is to get something working | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:14 <sharoon> without big pits even if it is not a text book implementation | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:15 <cedk> sharoon: procmail, you can go with what you want as at least we have a single point for incoming emails | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:15 <sharoon> cedk: so i guess all the points have been covered... | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:15 <sharoon> cedk: its not possible to have legacy support and still maintain it with so many changes | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:15 <sharoon> so i drop the idea | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:15 <cedk> sharoon: no for me duplicate emails is very important | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:16 <sharoon> cedk: but its just part of the create_from_mail... we can improve it after intitial design | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:16 <cedk> sharoon: I still don't understand what are you dropping? | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:16 <sharoon> its not a big change anywaty | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:16 <cedk> sharoon: it is a big change | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:17 <cedk> sharoon: because from that linked email to folders will depend | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:17 <cedk> sharoon: and also tracking the state of the email (unread, read, etc.) | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:17 <sharoon> cedk: i dont think its a priority for a first working release | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:18 <cedk> if you go in one direction, you could not come back to the other one | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:18 <sharoon> cedk: i think we keep some basic guidelines so that the basic design does not hinder change | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:18 <cedk> or the migration script will require too much work than implementing at first place | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:19 <cedk> sharoon: yes, and we have not yet define the design of email and folders | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:20 <sharoon> * email.mailbox | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:20 <sharoon> o name: char | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:20 <sharoon> o users: many2many email.mailbox-res.user | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:20 <sharoon> * email.mailbox-res.user | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:20 <sharoon> o mailbox: many2one email.mailbox | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:20 <sharoon> o user: many2one res.user | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:20 <sharoon> o parent: many2one email.mailbox | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:20 <sharoon> o subscribed: boolean | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:20 <sharoon> Unique: mailbox, user | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:20 <sharoon> that was the original design from blueprint | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:20 <sharoon> i guess that will suffice | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:20 -!- sharkcz(~dan@plz1-v-4-17.static.adsl.vol.cz) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:22 <cedk> sharoon: I think it is not correct | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:23 <sharoon> cedk: please propose | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:23 <cedk> I think flags must not be on email | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:24 <cedk> but on the many2many table that link email to mailbox | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:24 <cedk> like that we can put same email in different mailbox | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:24 <cedk> of diffrent user | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:25 <cedk> sharoon: I need to think more | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:25 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:25 <sharoon> i think i will follow the changes on wiki | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:25 <cedk> I will make a proposition the WE | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:26 <cedk> I need to check all commands of IMAP | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:26 <cedk> sharoon: I think last topic is the IMAP server | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:27 <sharoon> i think we can discuss that after the first part is implemented | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:27 <sharoon> ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:27 <sharoon> is that ok? | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:27 <cedk> ok | ||
| 2010-05-22 17:43 -!- eLBati(~elbati@94.160.71.162) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:09 <paepke> cedk, sharoon. i know i'm late. may i give you my 2c about that incoming mail? | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:12 <cedk> paepke: no problem | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:12 <paepke> i agree with cedk about that incoming mail path. if you pull from a pop/imap server you can use traditional tools like fetchmail which work for several years. if you implement this with python a second time, it will be a hard thing cause of the many different implementations. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:14 <paepke> with the pop/imap fetching you have to store the username/passwords for every account you fetch. thats the corresponding security hole which you talk about at the sending email topic. but its a common practise. these username/passwords don't have to be the same like the windows or tryton passwords. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:15 <cedk> paepke: yes, but the current design will allow also to have pulling | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:17 <sharoon> paepke: welcome back | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:17 <paepke> there should be a message deduplication (store only one message) in tryton. a lot of doubled emails for example mails related to project with a lot of members are floating around. every groupware/email server is looking into that cause of the exploding messages. i'm talking about that servers with a database backend. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:18 <paepke> cedk, its ok to have both setups. just wanna give you my experience about pulling. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:19 <udono> hi | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:20 <paepke> another point which is currently not mentioned is the attachment. please allow to store that attachment as a file. and only the message in the database. or only the headers. i missed that discussion. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:20 <cedk> sharoon: model design updated on wiki | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:21 <sharoon> cedk: checking | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:21 <cedk> paepke: take a look at the model design on wiki | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:22 <sharoon> cedk: are you retaining the falg design | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:22 <cedk> I propose to store email without header in the data_path like the attachment (so no duplication) and only keep header in record | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:22 <paepke> email from data_path means a function where you can store it somewhere? cool design decission | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:22 <cedk> sharoon: yes, because I move only the duplicate part in the data_path | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:23 <cedk> paepke: data_path is a way to store file in directory like it is done in proxy cache | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:23 <cedk> paepke: and it store only once a file | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:23 <cedk> paepke: because we used digest to name this file | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:24 <paepke> cedk, good. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:24 <sharoon> cedk: sexy design | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:24 <udono> I read the log, and found a lot of interesting ideas. But some questions remain. Is there a way to support POP before SMTP which is used by cheap email providers? I guess it could be an additional module/script... | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:24 <cedk> I have let the header on the email record because there is some attributes that are unique even on same emails like "Delivery-To:" and "Originate:" | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:25 <paepke> cedk, but why not store the headers with the file. my intention is to have the email as it was received by tryton. with the digest we can see that it was not mangled. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:25 <cedk> udono: POP and SMTP are different protocol for different purpose | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:26 <paepke> cedk, pop bevore smtp is a kind of poor mans authentication. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:26 <udono> cedk: realy? :-) | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:27 <cedk> udono: is that POP for AUTH on SMTP ? | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:27 <udono> cedk: yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POP_before_SMTP | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:27 <cedk> udono: not supported by python lib | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:28 <cedk> paepke: for header, here is a scenario: | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:28 <cedk> one email is sended to two users of Tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:28 <cedk> so we want to store it only once (especially if there is big attchment) | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:29 <cedk> but they will have a different header | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:29 <cedk> because email server will add "Delivery-To:" to each one with his email addresse | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:29 <udono> cedk: k | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:30 <cedk> so the data_path storage will store them as different file | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:30 <cedk> that is why I store the header in the record and the data content in data_path | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:30 <cedk> paepke: is it ok for you? | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:31 <sharoon> cedk: concept of header looks solid as of now | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:32 <udono> cedk: is the E-Mail storage usable for archiving? That means are all incoming mails stored unchanged forever. Deleting a mail from the users client means 'unlink' the email-resource instead of 'deleting' the resource. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:33 <paepke> cedk, i have to think about that delivered too. i'm not sure about. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:34 <paepke> udono, cedk: it should be possible to change the link to the email in the future. like that archiving udo is talking about. just copy over to a different, slower storage. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:34 <cedk> udono: if we don't delete email records | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:37 <paepke> i'm just thinking: what about a second imap-mailbox with archived mails. if you delete it in your primary inbox it gets an archive flag and it shows up in your archive inbox. so you can clean your mails and its not a big deal to the server. cron jobs could move the files at night to a secondary storage. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:38 <cedk> paepke: I prefer logical delete | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:40 <paepke> cedk, for example in germany you have to remain all emails which you recieve for 10 years. (well thats totally short, there are exceptions and so on.) | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:41 <paepke> cedk, but a user wants a clean inbox. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:41 <cedk> paepke: logical delete | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:41 <paepke> how can the user access the mail after that? | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:41 <cedk> reactive it | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:41 <paepke> cedk, please explain. maybe i misunderstand. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:42 <paepke> cedk, you mean that struck out in the mail client? | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:43 <cedk> paepke: no it is active field like any where else | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:44 <udono> paepke: I guess you do this in Tryton, which will be a kind of a control-center of the companies Emails. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:47 <paepke> udono, that breaks up the mail managing interface (eg thunderbird) | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:48 <udono> paepke: why? | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:48 <paepke> udono, how would you manage it? there has to be an mail client interface in tryton? | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:49 <paepke> udono, you have to build up sfolderstructure for example to select the mail. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:50 <paepke> but ok, you have a great search interface to the mails. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:51 <paepke> in my oppinion the mail handling should be one interface - the mail client. for example deleting a mail results in archiving into a second mailbox. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:52 <udono> paepke: As far as I understood, a simple and generic interface for e-mails will be provided in Tryton. cedk? sharoon? | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:55 <paepke> cedk, i have that delivered-to only on my gmail account. every other accout don't us it. youre right. that breaks the single instance storage. | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:56 <cedk> I have updated the model storage to store almost the complete email without some define custom header | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:56 <cedk> paepke: I don't think you must handle deleted email from email client | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:57 <cedk> paepke: it is more like a backup so when user realize that he need a deleted email, he will ask to the admin to restore it | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:58 <paepke> cedk, yes, like an trash. an important thing. but the user should have the possibility to restore that mail by himself | ||
| 2010-05-22 18:58 <paepke> cedk, before a cron job gets rid of it after 30 days | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:00 <paepke> cedk, don't you have an use case for an extra email archive? outside of your mailbox. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:00 <paepke> cedk, it would be great to have that without buying an extra email archive appliance. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:02 <cedk> paepke: I find email archive unuseful with IMAP | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:02 <cedk> paepke: it will be something doable with custom module | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:03 <cedk> again we should build simple module and extend it with other | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:03 <paepke> cedk, maybe youre right with custom module. its just another big point for a lot of companies. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:04 <udono> paepke: since email storage is on file system, you can 'archive' your mails with your file system tools. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:04 <paepke> cedk, imap is not an archive. its an protocol.:-). it could be a possible access protocol to an archive. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:05 <cedk> paepke: I mean as I use IMAP I don't have all my emails on my PC but only those who I want | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:05 <paepke> udono, the big point in archiving is to store it in a way where you can not modify it. that could be done with tryton so that the user cannot change it. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:06 <cedk> sharoon: is the data model ok for you? | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:06 <sharoon> cedk: looks ok to me, will get back to you when we are implementing if any issues are there | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:07 <paepke> cedk, youre an expierienced user. i know not much users which are able to subscribe to certain folders | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:07 <cedk> sharoon: ok, but try to publish/coderview each modules as soon as possible | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:08 <sharoon> cedk: fine | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:09 <cedk> guys don't forget to review triggers | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:10 <paepke> cedk, i think in a freshly designed email server there should be an archive solution integrated. but thats just my personal thoughts. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:11 <paepke> cedk, sharoon: its impressive that you do such a big thing like programming a whole webserver. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:11 <paepke> mailserver... :-/ | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:11 <udono> paepke: Data is always changeable. So you need a kind of automated signature of all incoming and outgoing mails to follow changes. I think the Tryton mail storage is not the right place for doing this, because the headers and contents will be changed if I understand correctly. The tryton storage archive is IMHO more useful for data mining. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:12 <paepke> udono, the best point to archive an mail is at the incoming smtp-server. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:13 <paepke> udono, but at the discussing with integrated polling its necessary to have it. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:13 <cedk> udono: the archiving principle of no changeable data is a dream | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:14 <cedk> and I think the data_path is good enough for archiving | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:14 <cedk> we will only remove headers that are added by your own email server | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:14 <paepke> udono, cause of the changeble headers i were asking about the full mail as stored file. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:14 <cedk> and nothing about the content | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:15 <cedk> nor the common headers like Date, Received:, Message-ID:, Subject: etc. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:15 <paepke> cedk, the headers are important, too. but you already mentioned it. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:15 <cedk> paepke: but not what we will remove | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:16 <cedk> paepke: because it is something you add to it (with your server) | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:16 <paepke> cedk, yes. youre totally right. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:16 <udono> paepke: The best point to archive Emails afaik for Germany administration is to do it with a proprietary appliance which is directly behind your router or a service on demand. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:16 <cedk> and not all email server add those headers | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:17 <cedk> udono: I'm pretty sure we will do better then that :-) | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:17 <paepke> cedk, the big and good point is that appending other tags or information to the mail like a future crm module is to have that archived, too. like assigining to a project. so searching on archived/deleted mails would be comfortable | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:17 <cedk> paepke: we will not alter headers to attch email to records | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:18 <cedk> paepke: it will be with many2one in database records | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:18 <paepke> cedk, but inside the database | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:18 <cedk> paepke: yes | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:18 <udono> cedk: Just reflecting the conclusion of some Expert talk about Email archiving in Germany in a last year Linux Journal. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:18 <paepke> cedk, fully agree | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:19 <cedk> udono: common behavior to create a market to sale unecessary stuffs | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:19 <cedk> so I'm leaving | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:19 <udono> cedk: may be. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:19 <cedk> ACTION bbl | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:23 <paepke> udono, i agree with cedk. but we can discuss that on the #tryton.de ;-) | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:32 <udono> paepke: I agree with the governmental requirements for Germany. | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:33 <paepke> udono, jepp | ||
| 2010-05-22 19:36 <udono> paepke: and as I said, I do not think that Trytons e-mail storage is the right place for archiving mails in order to these requirements... because the requirements are very nation specific. | ||
| 2010-05-22 20:39 -!- FWiesing(~FWiesing@85-126-100-130.work.xdsl-line.inode.at) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 20:51 -!- zodman(~zodman@foresight/developer/zodman) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 22:16 -!- zodman(~zodman@foresight/developer/zodman) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-05-22 23:03 -!- zodman(~zodman@foresight/developer/zodman) has joined #tryton |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!