Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Open Source AJAX Webmail

CmdrTaco posted about 9 years ago | from the future-of-web-design dept.

PHP 311

scrasher writes "It seems AJAX webmail is all the craze. Right on the heels of both Microsoft and Yahoo launching beta versions of their new AJAX webmail clients, an Open Source startup RoundCube has released an alpha of a GPLed AJAX webmail client. While there are still many features missing (like search!), the demo they have is completely cross-browser compliant and overall very impressive."

cancel ×

311 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Foldername length patch. (4, Interesting)

suso (153703) | about 9 years ago | (#13781395)

For anyone who wants this fix, I made a q&d change to the folder listing code so that it truncates long folder names in the middle so that they don't run over and screw up your display. I submitted this patch to the author a month ago, but it hasn't made it into the trunk yet I guess.

http://suso.suso.org/programs/roundcube/ [suso.org]

Roundcube is pretty neat, but it still has some bugs. The IMAP client caches everything so that it is faster on subsequent tries, but on large mailboxes it can be a real pain the first time. It makes for a good program to hack on though. Its just what I've been looking for to replace squirrelmail on suso.org [suso.org] .

Buggy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781463)

Buggy indeed. In the demo, if you click on a message in the inbox it gets selected. How TF do you read it?

When I tried to compose a message the "subject" field was obscured by the remains of the "to" auto-complete window. And when I pressed "delete" I was taken back to the Inbox. Eh?

Still, it looks quite nice.

Re:Buggy (1)

jamesgamble (917138) | about 9 years ago | (#13781474)

It's in Alpha. It's supposed to be buggy. :)

Re:Buggy (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781523)

In the demo, if you click on a message in the inbox it gets selected. How TF do you read it?

Double click.

It's not so much buggy as it needs some serious HCI help. Web applications should NEVER require double clicks, and even in regular applications they should be used only in very specific circumstances.

On the bright side, the application is very pretty. (Which is more than can be said for other OSS Webmail like SquirrelMail.)

Re:Buggy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781753)

They are used in very specific circumstances in regular application email. it's called "opening the email". sounds alot like what this web app does.

If you're trying to write a web app to act like a real app, you probably should think in regular app ways rather than web app ways.

Re:Buggy (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781943)

They are used in very specific circumstances in regular application email. it's called "opening the email". sounds alot like what this web app does.

This is blatently incorrect. Most regular email apps "open the email" when you click on it. i.e. The email is shown in a preview pane. Double-clicking has a very different effect of opening the email in a new window. Since this program does not open the email in a new window when double-clicked, its implementation is wrong.

And to define wrong, I mean: inconsistent with the rest of the applications and unintuitive to a new user. "Wrong" may also be construed to mean a failure to meet HCI guidelines. The seventh guideline from this page [sourcelabs.com] , for example, states that you should not, "Invent new UI conventions [for AJAX applications]."

Re:Buggy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781674)

if you click on a message in the inbox it gets selected. How TF do you read it?

Double click it. It looks like they took lessons from Outlook, though god knows why people keep trying to imitate crap. Probably because idiots keep insisting that if it doesn't look and work exactly like the crap that is currently foisted on people, then it's horrible. Take for instance Outlook, or Photoshop.

Re:Buggy (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781932)

Photoshop ain't crap, son.

Re:Foldername length patch. (5, Informative)

mottie (807927) | about 9 years ago | (#13781784)

I have just installed it for the first time, but it appears that the caching portion is completely optional.
 
// enable caching of messages and mailbox data in the local database.
// this is recommended if the IMAP server does not run on the same machine

$rcmail_config['enable_caching'] = FALSE;

Zimbra (4, Interesting)

Cally (10873) | about 9 years ago | (#13781432)

There's also the Zimbra [zimbra.com] product, which is open source. It's on my list to eval - the Flash demo (see the webpage) looks pretty slick.

Ajax is the first genuinely new thing I can think of this century.

Re:Zimbra (2, Interesting)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about 9 years ago | (#13781478)

Ajax is not a technology in itself, but a term that refers to the use of a group of technologies together. (wikipedia.org)

Re:Zimbra (3, Informative)

ExKoopaTroopa (671002) | about 9 years ago | (#13781481)

except that is just another fancy name for a bundle of not so recent technologies

Re:Zimbra (1, Flamebait)

Cally (10873) | about 9 years ago | (#13781620)

Oh FFS, what is this, pedant's corner? Of course Javascript and the DOM aren't new, but [blatant abuse snipped]* notice that no-one was really using it until Google Maps first came along (was it earlier this year, or last year?) Now suddenly you can't move for startups using, yes, AJAX technologies. What's new isn't the libraries, it's the use to which it is being put. "IT" meaning AJAX, meaning (as the acronym says) *THE COMBINATION OF PRE-EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES IN A NOVEL COMBINATION*.

Pardon my gnarliness, I had to get up at 6am this morning to sit through 90 minutes of Powerpoint and marketing at a "Breakfast briefing" and I seem to have picked up a light touch of misanthropy. If you can call day-dreaming about slowly lowering shapemakers who burble about Flash into a dip of boiling polyethylene.

(* removed: [if you pull your heads out of your arses for a moment you would] )

Re:Zimbra (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about 9 years ago | (#13781687)

Isn't /. great for that warm-all-over feeling in the morning. I think many folks were using it, they just didn't realize it.

Re:Zimbra (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781723)

Dear Sir,

The combination of technologies and the use to which they are being put which are currently being called AJAX have been in play for at least five years. The fact that dipsticks like you didn't notice it until Google started doing it, and some other dipstick put a shiny new acronym on it in an attempt to make it look like he thought of it, does not change that.

Writing in all caps also does not change the fact that you are wrong, and likely an idiot. Good day.

Re:Zimbra (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781846)

shouts hear! hear!

making web apps look like native apps using, DOM, CCS and javascript

Have been doing that for years for internal apps as have many others.

It is irritating cause these 'new' things hitting the headlines show just how low skilled so many web developers are.

Re:Zimbra (1)

Cally (10873) | about 9 years ago | (#13781879)

The combination of technologies and the use to which they are being put which are currently being called AJAX have been in play for at least five years.
Reference, please.

Re:Zimbra (2, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 9 years ago | (#13781534)

"Ajax is the first genuinely new thing I can think of this century."

Wow, that's a hell of a thinking block... I've managed to have several new ideas since 1999. :)



"Quick, better to live or die, once and for all, than die by inches, slowly crushed to death--helpless against the hulls in the bloody press--by far inferior men!"

Telamonian Ajax, The Iliad, Homer

Re:Zimbra (4, Informative)

fak3r (917687) | about 9 years ago | (#13781537)

Zimbra is pretty much full featured, and does allot more (AJAX wise and otherwise) than Roundcube. Give it a look too. Having said that, Roundcube is basically one person, and it's a very impressive project in that regards; nice clean UI, and a somewhat new way to deal with 'webmail'. I see Zimbra as being a great comapany (all stuff is 'ZPL' btw) but Roundcube should attract some devs now, and I expect it to be a real nice 'light' solution for us home mailserver folks.

Re:Zimbra (4, Informative)

AvitarX (172628) | about 9 years ago | (#13781922)

yeah, Zimbra is a collaborative suite, presumably a replacement for another one.

Roundcube is a nice client for IMAP email access that leaves everything in tact (probably a lot lower requirements too).

Re:Zimbra (4, Informative)

Wornstrom (920197) | about 9 years ago | (#13781607)

I would recommend that you use a system that has some horsepower. I installed Zimbra on a p4 3.0 Ghz HT 1GB ram box (my workstation), and experienced some heavy load. Not only that but it takes the liberty of rewriting your firewall ruleset, so I wouldn't use an existing system without being prepared for service / connectivity interruptions (linux gateway/firewalls). Sure, it is still in beta, so I will give it that excuse, I couldn't imagine releasing the horde on it for production use yet. If this one doesn't require all sorts of backends, I might give it a try.

Re:Zimbra (1)

garaged (579941) | about 9 years ago | (#13781936)

who did it manage to get root privileges and do that ??

Re:Zimbra (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781673)

How is using Javascript and XML to generate dynamic content "genuinely new?" That's like calling a peanut butter sandwich "genuinely new" because it combines two condiments.

Re:Zimbra (1)

Gilk180 (513755) | about 9 years ago | (#13781778)

How exactly is a peanut butter sandwich combining two condiments?

Peanut butter - arguably a condiment
Bread - Definitely not a condiment

Now, if you meant to reference that most divine of sandwiches, the pb & j ...

Re:Inconceivable! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781719)

Ajax is the first genuinely new thing I can think of this century.

<inigo-montoya>You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.</inigo-montoya>

Re:Zimbra (3, Interesting)

porneL (674499) | about 9 years ago | (#13781728)

Ajax is the first genuinely new thing I can think of this century.
AJAX is not a new thing. It's new name for technologies of last century. Read Hixie's post [hixie.ch] about how old and inappropriately named AJAX is.

Re:Zimbra (2, Funny)

hey (83763) | about 9 years ago | (#13781903)

Good luck changing the name of AJAX to REST.

Re:Zimbra (1)

rabel (531545) | about 9 years ago | (#13781825)

Good lord, this thing needs a dedicated server practically. Slick as hell, but it sure takes a lot of liberties with your box. That's right, I'm not the market for this product... This roundcube thing is right up my alley.

Re:Zimbra (2, Funny)

qray (805206) | about 9 years ago | (#13781850)

New? I remember my grandmother using it clean her sink.
--
Q

not a business startup (2, Informative)

jbellis (142590) | about 9 years ago | (#13781441)

When you stay "startup," it makes people think they're trying to start a business around this. They're not, at least not from what I read. It's just one guy's project on sourceforge.

Cross-browser? (2, Funny)

dascandy (869781) | about 9 years ago | (#13781445)

The big question is: Does it run on Lynx and Links?

Re:Cross-browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781489)

i don't think so!

Re:Cross-browser? (3, Insightful)

narrowhouse (1949) | about 9 years ago | (#13781521)

Actually that is a good question. AJAX is great but it needs to gracefully fall back to solid useable HTML for clients that can't handle javascript or whatever.

Re:Cross-browser? (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | about 9 years ago | (#13781606)

Browsers that don't handle JS? That's so "last century"...

Re:Cross-browser? (2, Funny)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 9 years ago | (#13781671)

> Actually that is a good question. AJAX is great but it needs to gracefully fall back to solid useable HTML for clients that can't handle
> javascript or whatever.

  And they also need to fall back to printed paper for people without computers. And spoken word for people who can't read.

Javascript is an accepted WWW standard. There is no reason for any app developer to not use javascript to his heart's content.

jfs

Re:Cross-browser? (1)

HungSquirrel (790165) | about 9 years ago | (#13781828)

There are plenty of reasons not to use JavaScript to one's heart's content. (Remember, not all users are browsing on a desktop PC.) However, for a web-based email client, it's certainly reasonable to expect users to only try to access it via a JavaScript-enabled browser.

1 reason : Handheld (2, Insightful)

DrYak (748999) | about 9 years ago | (#13781844)

There is no reason for any app developer to not use javascript to his heart's content.


Ultra-light hand held clients.
Like a lot of other people, I do use my Palm to surf the web.
Some browser for Palm don't have all the bells and whistle like full Javascript etc.

For some application, like E-Mails, there's (thankfully) still alternate ways to use content that are handheld friendly : E-Mail POP/IMAP software.
But there other application that are only accessible from the website, like train timetables. And if the website is "Best viewed with Explorer, Optimized for 1024x768", or only tested against mainstrem browsers (FireFox, Safari, IE), you're out-of-luck when you need to quickly check when you next train arrives. (I have luck, our nationnal train company has a light-browser friendly website [www.cff.ch] ).

Re:Cross-browser? (2, Informative)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | about 9 years ago | (#13781848)

Ever read this [w3.org] thingy? Or any of the other publications from this w3c thing?
They pay a lot of attention to ensuring things keep working, and dgrade in a nice gracefull way instead of just borking.

And yes, in 2005 there are still quite a few relevant browsers that do not support JS, and which would be extremely usable with a webmail application still. This concerns virtually all browsers on handheld devices.

Re:Cross-browser? (2, Insightful)

booch (4157) | about 9 years ago | (#13781884)

Javascript is an accepted WWW standard. There is no reason for any app developer to not use javascript to his heart's content.


That's ridiculous. JavaScript may be a standard, but that doesn't mean that you should expect every user's browser to support it. How about blind people using screen-reader? How about search engines? Don't you want them to be able to read your page? (Well, perhaps not if it's personal email sitting behind a login screen.)

And may I remind you that the whole basis of AJAX - XMLHttpRequest [wikipedia.org] - is NOT a standard. Don't you want your site to work on all the new cell phones coming out that a lot of people will soon be using to browse the web and read email? How about hand-held devices?

Gracefully degrading is a best practice for a lot of good reasons. And frankly, it's not that difficult, if you apply the principles of unobtrusive JavaScript [google.com] .

Not only the browser (1)

Wudbaer (48473) | about 9 years ago | (#13781909)

Depends who you target with your Web site. I am in the biotech field and there are lots of companies and not too few large University hospitals having ultra-paranoically configured firewalls and Web proxies that just strip your nice javascript code from the Web request. So if you target a population like that you have to have a reasonable fallback or it means using and pissing off lots of visitors/customers etc.

Re:Cross-browser? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781916)

Javascript is an accepted WWW standard. There is no reason for any app developer to not use javascript to his heart's content.

Security? Privacy?

I browse with Javascript turned off by default (Maxthon [maxthon.com] makes this really easy; it's two clicks to enable it for the current tab), and I thus don't see any pop-ups, rarely get asked for cookies (most sites seem to use Javascript for this!) and thus my computer can theoretically only get compromised if there's a bug in the HTML parser. (as opposed to this week's script-related exploit that makes it possible to, say, access the user's filesystem through some obscure object)

Javascript-less browsing isn't dead. It's both painless (less ads) and occasionally frustrating (you wouldn't believe how many forms use Javascript for stuff that doesn't need it, like submitting the damn form!), but it's overall better than browsing with scripting enabled.

Re:Cross-browser? (1, Informative)

freshman_a (136603) | about 9 years ago | (#13781924)


The big question is: Does it run on Lynx and Links?

Although the summary states that it is "completely cross-browser compliant", RoundCube's website lists it as having been tested with Firefox, Opera, Safari, and IE. Some people still do use Lynx and Links.

Anyway, I tried it with Lynx and Links and didn't have any trouble logging into the demo. However, it appears that the Compose, Reply, Forward, etc., commands are all represented as images without alt tags, because I was shown the folder list and a bunch of [IMG] tags.

So while it works with Lynx and Links, it's not yet very usable with them.

One comment and slashdotted! (4, Funny)

sootman (158191) | about 9 years ago | (#13781449)

A new record?

Free, open-source AJAX webmail--it seems we've discovered the secret formula to get slashdotters to read articles!

Re:One comment and slashdotted! (3, Interesting)

sootman (158191) | about 9 years ago | (#13781494)

Ack! The one time I'm around early enough to make a comment like that and it turns out it's not down. (Or if it was, they recovered quickly.) In any case, it looks great. And being MySQL-based, the big missing feature--search--should be pretty easy to add. In fact, all I've ever wanted was an SQL query window I can run against my email--`select * from inbox where (sender='mom' or sender='dad') and date>20041225 and date20041230 and subject like '%party%'`

Re:One comment and slashdotted! (1)

sootman (158191) | about 9 years ago | (#13781530)

And, of course, the one time I don't preview is the one time I have a '<' for slashdot to swallow--there's supposed to be one in 'and date<20041230'

Re:One comment and slashdotted! (1)

erlenic (95003) | about 9 years ago | (#13781713)

In this case, you could have just used "date BETWEEN 20041225 AND 20041230"

Re:One comment and slashdotted! (2, Informative)

houston_pt (514463) | about 9 years ago | (#13781678)

If you have a Gmail account, next to the search buttons there's the "Show search options" link that opens a query form that does all that and some more :) If you don't have a Gmail account I can give you one ;)

Re:One comment and slashdotted! (1)

loconet (415875) | about 9 years ago | (#13781912)

If the only parties you attend to are with your mom and/or dad, you won't need a database to tell you there are 0 results if you do:

WHERE sender_gender='F' AND sender <> 'mom' AND subject like '%party%'

Re:One comment and slashdotted! (1)

GatorMan (70959) | about 9 years ago | (#13781602)

Hey, it had the magic words 'GPL' and 'demo'. Just do the math :)

Not all browsers supported (2, Informative)

gitana (756955) | about 9 years ago | (#13781458)

Unfortunatly, I can not try the demo because the mac specific Mozilla browser - Camino- is not supported. I may be able to spoof my browser and access the mail client without any problems but isnt that what we are trying to get away from?

Re:Not all browsers supported (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781513)

Camio works I just tried the demo using it. It was very slow but worked.

Re:Not all browsers supported (1)

p940e (539763) | about 9 years ago | (#13781945)

I've definitely been using it just fine with Camino.

AJAX is a retarded term (-1, Troll)

Goaway (82658) | about 9 years ago | (#13781464)

"AJAX" is a retarded and non-sensical name made up by a consulting company who wanted to make themselves sound important. I can't believe you people are falling for it.

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (1)

SimilarityEngine (892055) | about 9 years ago | (#13781500)

Asynchronous JavaScript + XML - what would you call it? What am I falling for?

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (1)

BarryNorton (778694) | about 9 years ago | (#13781612)

Asynchronous JavaScript + XML - what would you call it? What am I falling for?
"Asynchronous" JavaScript seems to be the second thing you've fallen for. OK, so XMLHttpRequest isn't the best name, but Garrett's article was both vacuous and misleading...

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (1)

SimilarityEngine (892055) | about 9 years ago | (#13781696)

I read it as asynchronous (JavaScript + XML) rather than (asynchronous JavaScript) + XML. Oh well, whether you call it AJAX or JAAX or whatever - "That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet" etc.

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (1)

BarryNorton (778694) | about 9 years ago | (#13781802)

Oh, I see (sorry)... still, using the word asynchronous is prone to this kind of ambiguity when you don't even say what it's not synchronous with (the original page requested, I suppose).

Still, JavaScript is not a necessary part (and ignores the origins in Outlook), and the article doesn't even use XML! Definitely confuses the architecture and (one) implementation...

How about 'self-updating web content and scripting'?
Or better still: _S_elf-_U_pdating _C_ontent and _K_iller _S_cripting

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (1)

Goaway (82658) | about 9 years ago | (#13781751)

I call it "Javascript", because that's what it is - there's no need to make up new words. Especially when almost nothing that's called "AJAX" actually uses XML for anything.

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (1)

SimilarityEngine (892055) | about 9 years ago | (#13781869)

almost nothing that's called "AJAX" actually uses XML for anything.

Hang on - isn't the use of XMLHttpRequest the defining thing? Which would imply the use of XML it would seem. So if it didn't use XML for anything, then it would be an abuse of the term AJAX rather than a fault with the acronym itself IMVHO.

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (1)

KiroDude (853510) | about 9 years ago | (#13781515)

I liked "ACME" more.. but they wouldn't use it...

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (3, Informative)

MankyD (567984) | about 9 years ago | (#13781531)

"AJAX" is a retarded and non-sensical name made up by a consulting company who wanted to make themselves sound important. I can't believe you people are falling for it.
And what would your rather we call it? And what magical consulting company is this? If they've done such a good job making themselves sound important then certainly you must be able to come up with their name off the top of your head. (oh wait, you didn't include their name in your post :P)

No one is "falling" for anything. It's a name that works for a useful technology.

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (1)

BarryNorton (778694) | about 9 years ago | (#13781542)

Adaptive Path, I believe. Agreed, it's not a bad name, but it still needs a link... (this article is of the usual unhelpful Slashdot variety)

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (1)

hey! (33014) | about 9 years ago | (#13781709)

Yegads, though. "Adaptive Path" is even worse than AJAX. First of all, it sounds kind of agent-y -- as if there were a piece of software which adapted it's behavior to maintain some kind of equillibrium state, like a software thermostat.

Of course, if I were naming the technology, I'd have called it "DOM Twiddling". That way I wouldn't be shy of chucking XML for something better like ASN.1. "AJAX", for an acronym that really represents a kind of architectural style, is unnecessarily specific on irrelevant implementation details. And DT is a nice acronym don't you think? As in, "Our CEO had DT long before our client software ever did."

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (2, Informative)

Goaway (82658) | about 9 years ago | (#13781791)

And what would your rather we call it?

How about "Javascript", since that's all it is?

And what magical consulting company is this?

Adaptive Path, and here's the original Slashdot article where they started the whole thing:
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/0 2/23/1859222 [slashdot.org]

It's a name that works for a useful technology.

It's technology that already had a name and doesn't need a new one.

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 9 years ago | (#13781906)

It's technology that already had a name and doesn't need a new one.

What's retarded is that people spend inordinate amounts of time biatching about the name of a technology. I'm sorry you had to learn to use a new word. If the new name gains most of the mindshare, doesn't that mean the new name is better?

How about "Javascript", since that's all it is?

What is wrong with calling it AJAX instead of Javascript?

Nothing. If anything, 'Javascript' has problems, because the word 'script' -- as in script kiddies -- has negative connotations. Add on 'Java' and either your talking about Indonesia, which makes people think of outsourcing (or will, in the next decade), or you're talking about coffee -- and do we really need people associating a useful tech with video game pron mods?

You can call it whatever you like (you can call it Fungrifoo, if you like, in your notes to yourself) -- but whatever name dominates mindshare is the one I'll use when communicating with others about it.

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (1)

helix_r (134185) | about 9 years ago | (#13781830)


Lets not get carried away here.

AJAX is okay for some limited applications like webmail, but it is no replacement for a nicely written interactive GUI APPLICATION.

At my work, we have slaved away for a year to develop an insipid data-entry application. The chosen technogy? J2ee w/struts. It was a colossal pain in the considering that this was strictly an in-house-under-one-roof app. Now, some of the "architects" are already talking about AJAX for our subsequent in-house bloated data-entry web apps.

Everything I've see about AJAX so far indicates that it is a brutally annoying way to put together an app. Sadly, the hype-pushers show no sign of relenting.

When are we going to move on from this web-browser as application platform bullshit and work with more interesting things like, for example, java web-start and other ways to maintain a rich thick client?

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (1)

kerrle (810808) | about 9 years ago | (#13781864)

It doesn't have to be; Ruby's integration of AJAX features is actually quite painless, and can add some real functionality.

Re:AJAX is a retarded term (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | about 9 years ago | (#13781541)

If you want to be more specific --Adaptive Path, specifically by Jesse James Garrett:

http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/ar chives/000385.php [adaptivepath.com]
(it's not worth linking to, and giving them hits for it, though)

And I agree -- the term right up there with 'blog' as terms that need to go. (the only good thing about the term 'blog' is that it's close to 'bog [peak.org] ', which seems to suggest the contents of them)

Solution to reading E-mail. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781468)

""It seems AJAX webmail is all the craze. Right on the heels of both Microsoft and Yahoo launching beta versions of their new AJAX webmail clients, an Open Source startup RoundCube has released an alpha of a GPLed AJAX webmail client."

So I guess we have a "solution stack" for the problem of reading E-mail?

" the demo they have is completely cross-browser compliant and overall very impressive."

Could it be otherwise?

Irony (5, Funny)

karvind (833059) | about 9 years ago | (#13781482)

Does anyone else find it ironic ? The contact email address is : roundcube@AJAXgmail.comREMOVEAJAX

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781775)

Yes, it is ironic. Usually nonce characters added to email
addresses do not create non-valid domains. Usually, you
add them to your user name, and turn off VRFY from your MX.

It is very ironic that such an amateurish email addr was used.

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781833)

I think the parent is trying to say that they use Google Email. He/She tried to put the email address with other characters to make sure it is not picked up by the bots. Does GMail use AJAX ? Now that will be funny.

/.ed (0, Redundant)

aldragon (782143) | about 9 years ago | (#13781501)

Heh, looks like their demo at http://demo.roundcube.net/ [roundcube.net] might be a little bogged down by /.

Roundcube as extensible as Squirrelmail? (3, Interesting)

slashfun (831726) | about 9 years ago | (#13781507)

This really looks cool, but is it as extensible as Squirrelmail?

We have found that we can extend Squirrelmail to present a very lite webmail presence, yet keep the functionality simple so that basic features will still work in a syncronized fashion with a heavy remote client (IMAPS).

Roundcube still needs some kind of anti-spam integration and automated signup routines, but we will certainly keep an eye on it.

AJAX Security (3, Informative)

webappsec (854813) | about 9 years ago | (#13781557)


AJAX Security [cgisecurity.com]

the F***ADIES ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781562)

Re:the F***ADIES ??? (0, Offtopic)

Wornstrom (920197) | about 9 years ago | (#13781656)

Swiss Punk Rock Band [swissunderground.ch]

what communik8r? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781567)

communik8r [communik8r.org] beat yahoo, hotmail and roundcube with the idea. Sadly it looks like it has stalled. It shows a lot of promise when I played with it, but it was way too unstable for production.

Call me old fashioned... (5, Funny)

WhoDey (629879) | about 9 years ago | (#13781568)

...but am I the only one who still prefers pine? [washington.edu]

Re:Call me old fashioned... (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about 9 years ago | (#13781585)

ELM is still better.

pine + screen (2, Informative)

Dlugar (124619) | about 9 years ago | (#13781721)

I use pine + screen for 99% of my email needs. Works great! Long lasting taste satisfaction. (And I have squirrelmail installed for the rare occasion that [a] I'm on a computer that doesn't have ssh, or [b] I want to view an attachment.)

Dlugar

Re:Call me old fashioned... (1)

Angstroem (692547) | about 9 years ago | (#13781733)

Amen, brother.

Indeed, I use PINE as my daily mail client. I just don't need some fancy, overblown GUI monster which hogs most of my screen and eats away precious memory.

Funnily enough, even my s/o uses PINE instead of one of those cuddly, oh-so-user-friendly programs. Although she's no computer geek at all, she prefers ctrl-this and ctrl-that over aim-and-click.

Re:Call me old fashioned... (1)

wintermute740 (450084) | about 9 years ago | (#13781736)

"...but am I the only one who still prefers pine?"

You were modded funny, but no, you're not... I prefer pine as well... I used to read all my mail using the DOS version of pine... Now, I use Thunderbird, Squirelmail, or pine under Linux, depending on where I'm checking my mail from.

Re:Call me old fashioned... (1)

naich (781425) | about 9 years ago | (#13781765)

No you aren't. It's far faster for me to go through my mail using single key strokes than all that mouse clicking that has to go on with GUI mail apps. I can ssh from any sort of terminal anywhere to read my mail and there are no embedded images or any other nasties. I can't catch viruses with it and it loads in about 0.1 seconds.

It beats me why anyone would want to use anything else.

Re:Call me old fashioned... (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | about 9 years ago | (#13781832)

Yes, you are old fashioned. The rest of us have moved on to mutt now. ;-)

Installed! Looks nice thus far... (4, Interesting)

nuxx (10153) | about 9 years ago | (#13781618)

I just installed it, and it seems pretty slick thus far. I think they still have a few things to add beyond search, namely:

- Server-side sorting so that all messages don't need to be downloaded in order to view, say, the 15 newest.
- Special folder support, such as Junk, Sent, Trash, etc. Currently send mail just goes off into the ether.

Other than that, I'm pretty impressed. I personally currently use Squirrelmail [squirrelmail.org] for my webmail needs, but it feels a bit clunky. If they can meet Squirrelmail's features (at a minimum) I can see this being used all over the place. I find the use of a DB for things like user/session/whatever management to be a bit odd, but at least actual files don't have to be used then.

Re:Installed! Looks nice thus far... (5, Informative)

rabel (531545) | about 9 years ago | (#13781669)

I haven't yet installed it, but it sure looks slick. Damn, and the installation requirements are just this simple. 1. Decompress and put this folder somewhere inside your document root 2. Make shure that the following directories are writable by the webserver - /temp - /logs 3. Create a new database and a database user for RoundCube 4. Create database tables using the queries in file 'SQL/*.initial.sql' 5. Modify the files in config/* to suit your local environment 6. Done!

Re:Installed! Looks nice thus far... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781780)

I downloaded and installed it myself.. As an e-mail client, it needs a LOT of work, it's in its very early stages. A few nice AJAX features, though. And it is usable.

You've got Slashdoted! (1)

kkovach (267551) | about 9 years ago | (#13781641)

Only the sound isn't that annoying *ding*, it's the sound of their server catching fire.

Installed it, easy install, not bad (2, Interesting)

Scoth (879800) | about 9 years ago | (#13781706)

Went ahead and tried it out, it's not bad looking at all. Has a way to go to replace some of the other webmail clients I've used (currently using squirrelmail on my server. Nice, simple, straightforward) but the install was quick and easy and it does look pretty. Might could use a howto on the mysql part for newbs, but I didn't have any trouble and I'm still pretty new to mysql myself. Does seem a bit slow on low-bandwidth servers like mine, but might be my fault.

Definitely keeping an eye on this, though. I'd not mind a friendlier webmail interface.

By your powers combined... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781726)

My God, it's like sex with MacOSX but through the power of AJAX, it's better!

AJA not AJAX (4, Informative)

minddog (460206) | about 9 years ago | (#13781738)

Whats commonly confused in the community, if there is no client-side xsl transformations using the browser, their is still interface load. This is not a true AJAX imap client, it is an AJA, and the xml is rendered server-side to xhtml standards.

If you are interested in a pure implementation that has been around longer thats true ajax, check out http://www.communik8r.org/ [communik8r.org]

List of AJAX Webmail clients? (2, Interesting)

Nate Fox (1271) | about 9 years ago | (#13781759)

Anyone got a somewhat comprehensive list of AJAX Webmail packages? Doesnt have to be only OSS.

Re:List of AJAX Webmail clients? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13781777)

A list? There is only 1 that counts - c8 [communik8r.org]

Intergration into Thunderbird? (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | about 9 years ago | (#13781773)

Yes, this does look very impressive. I thought the ideal use for this would be: an extension for Mozilla Thunderbird that installs a web server so you can use this interface to access the email on your home computer when you're not there. Would this sort of thing be at all feasible? Because if it were, it would really be a killer feature!

For a while now I've been using the web server interface on eMule, which is designed very nicely and really adds functionality.

LDAP? (1)

HogynCymraeg (624823) | about 9 years ago | (#13781865)

I'd love to use roundcube, however, without LDAP support I'm fubared. Like hell am I going to recreate 2000 user accounts with no syncing of passwords!

Gregarius (1)

sameerd (445449) | about 9 years ago | (#13781868)

Why just webmail? There are several open source web applications with ajaxified interfaces. Feed readers, calendars, you name it. Gregarius [gregarius.net] is exactly like roundcube and simply does to your feeds/news what roundcube does for email.

alt tags (2, Insightful)

mottie (807927) | about 9 years ago | (#13781894)

another thing it's missing is alt tags. it has a bunch of pretty buttons at the bottom of the screen, but i have no idea what any of them do. i'm guessing one of them is the logout button (as i can't seem to find one) but i have no idea.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?