From: Paul Lesniewski <paul@sq...> - 2007-02-28 17:47:06
On 2/28/07, Thijs Kinkhorst <kink@...> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 20:56 -0800, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
> > If this is going to be core, OK, but I'm not sure it should default to
> > be turned on...?
> I'm not sure aswell, there's pros and cons.
> > No way to know, but I am guessing that the majority
> > of SM installs are on systems where mail users are local users, and
> > the default of <username>@<domain> is usually correct, no?
> Then you still do not have a realname set and are sending mails with
> >From being just a mailaddress.
> > After more thought, this gets in the way of SM "just working" in
> > virtual setups too, where the username is the same as the full email
> > address.
> How would this break exactly? I don't understand. Do virtual setups
> provide a realname automatically?
I'm sorry - "break" is too strong a word. I only mean that users
might be confused or annoyed at being taken to the personal options
page instead of the inbox. No, virtual setups don't automatically
provide real names, either, but interestingly, you are testing against
the email_address field and assuming that if it is not set, the real
name field isn't set either. What is the problem of sending mails
without a "real name"?
Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.