Ticket #1332930 (Feature Requests)

Mark Edwards mark at antsclimbtree.com
Fri Aug 11 18:18:27 CEST 2006

On Aug 11, 2006, at 7:11 AM, Eric Stadtherr wrote:

> I agree with not relying solely on LDAP. Requiring LDAP for the  
> local address book imposes yet another installation/configuration/ 
> maintenance/support requirement on the RoundCube administrator.  
> Also, for people who are hosting RoundCube on third-part web  
> servers, LDAP may not even be an option.
> Having said that, LDAP is a very common directory service provider  
> for many companies and I think we need to support LDAP seamlessly.  
> Many e-mail clients (Thunderbird, Apple Mail) support read-only  
> access to LDAP directories as a supplement to their local address  
> book. I like this model, which is generally where RoundCube is  
> headed right now. There are some things we could do to more fully  
> support LDAP directories, some of which are in Tickets already:
> address completion should incorporate results from an LDAP query  
> (Ticket #1483899)
> authenticated bind to an LDAP server (there's a patch floating  
> around somewhere to hard-code this)
> expanded query capability (useful for large directories). This  
> should be kept in mind when adding fields to the local address book.
On an aside, why do all these clients only support read-access to  
LDAP?  Seems like it would really great to be able to use LDAP in  
place of a local address book in all of your clients, but that's not  
a possibility if you can't write to it.

I don't get why it is only considered to be useful for reading from.   
Something in the design of it?

I wish there was a standard way to replace local address books with a  
networked protocol, oh boy do I wish that.

Mark Edwards

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.roundcube.net/pipermail/dev/attachments/20060811/f365afda/attachment.html>

More information about the Dev mailing list