12409 - LDAP autocomplete should resolve LDAP mailing lists (groups, compose window)

Status: NEW

(MailNews Core :: LDAP Integration, enhancement, P3)

Description

[Phil Peterson]

When Communicator encountered a groupOfNames object, it didn't try to drill down
into the object to find all of the member DNs which compose the groupOfNames. It
would be nice if we did.

For example, you'd be able to send email to members of a group using only
mozilla and the LDAP server, without additional help from the mail server.

If we decided that we wanted to replicate groupOfNames objects using our
changelog-based replication scheme, we'd have to decompose the groupOfNames
object anyway, so this featurelet might come for free with replication
enhancements.

Comment 1

[Phil Peterson]

Reopen mail/news HELP WANTED bugs and reassign to [e-mail]

Comment 2

[Phil Peterson]

Put HELP WANTED in the Status Whiteboard so the mozilla.org bug query finds them

Comment 3

[pmock]

changing QA assigned to [e-mail]

Comment 4

[fenella]

Assign to Hong Kwon's group

Comment 5

[Dan Mosedale (:dmosedale, :dmose)]

This should be preference controlled; since if a mail server can do this, it
keeps  the list dynamic, and should therefore be preferred.

Comment 6

[Roland Felnhofer]

Is there so far any support of groupOfNames in Mozilla in respect of sending
mails  to members of this group? If yes, how has a groupOfNames object to be
organiced?


  

Comment 7

[Dan Mosedale (:dmosedale, :dmose)]

At this time; there is no such support; that's what this bug is intended to track.

Comment 8

[Dan Mosedale (:dmosedale, :dmose)]

*** Bug 90483 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 9

[Todd]

Hi All,

   I have several customers that the lack of lists affects *DRASTICALLY*.
I really, really need this bug fixed as soon as possible. 

   Is there any possible way to get this implemented on a fast track?
Without the lists, I have to go to each computer and hand edit their 
address books.  :-(   AAAAHHHHH!!!

Many thanks,
--Tony
[e-mail]

Comment 10

[Todd]

Hi All,

   Is there any chance of a resolution to this in our
future?  (I really need the feature badly!)

Many thanks,
--Tony
[e-mail]

Comment 11

[Roland Felnhofer]

Tony, I wouldn't expect it for the next 3-4 releases

Comment 12

[Todd]

Hi Roland,

   Not having this work is killing me.  Is there any way of escalating
the bug?  I am really good at groveling, begging and insincere
complements, if that will help.

--Tony

p.s. you would not believe the work around I have had to come up with.
Notice the way I am tricking Mozilla with the missing start bracket 
("<") and missing end bracket (">").  What a mess!  As I said, this
is killing me!

givenname: Everyone
objectClass: inetOrgPerson
mail: [e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]

Comment 13

[Roland Felnhofer]

Hi Tony,
I don't know how good you are in writing code. But you or somebody you know is
good in writing C-code - what about implementing that feature by yourself? ;-)
I all would like to have it, but I'm unfortunately not able to write C.
I'm well aware that the current LDAP implementation in Mozilla is a nightmare
for companies. Too many important parts are missing.

Comment 14

[Todd]

Hi Roland,

   About 7 years ago I was pretty good at Modula 2.  Unfortuantely,
I never learned C++.  Since then I have mainly used bash script
in Linux and got almost totally out of any other programming.

   Looks like I will have to stick with groveling, begging and 
insincere complements. I am pretty good at whining too but that
may only annoy the developers.

--Tony

Comment 15

[Todd]

Any chance of this getting worked on in 1.4b?

Comment 16

[Berend Veldkamp]

This has been open for over 5 years, should I abandon hope Mozilla will ever
support groupOfNames?

I remember this sort of worked in NS 4.x: when you double-clicked on a
groupOfNames in the addressbook, a new browser window would open where all
members would be resolved. From there you could compose a new message to all
members.

Berend

Comment 17

[Dan Mosedale (:dmosedale, :dmose)]

I'm wondering if this really wants to default to being groupOfUniqueNames and
simply be configurable to groupOfNames, given that duplicate names in a mailing
list don't make much sense.

Comment 18

[Mark Smith [:mcs]]

R.e. comment #17, there is no reason not to expand both groupOfNames and
groupOfUniqueNames objects.  People are probably using other object classes for
groups as well, since there are some known issues with these two (specifically,
at least one member is required to be in entries that use these OCs).

Comment 19

[Harry Kashouli]

Can't believe I'm dragging this old relic out of the grave, but I guess there is no hope that this will ever be resolved? Is this purely a Thunderbird bug, or does this also appear in Evolution and Kontact? This bug has killed all hope of switching permanently to Linux at work...

Shame, as all the other advances (Lightning, for example) almost brought Thunderbird closer to corporate environments?

Comment 20

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

(In reply to comment #19)
> Can't believe I'm dragging this old relic out of the grave, but I guess there
> is no hope that this will ever be resolved? Is this purely a Thunderbird bug,
> or does this also appear in Evolution and Kontact? This bug has killed all hope
> of switching permanently to Linux at work...

The address book architecture is currently undergoing various changes. How mailing lists are dealt with are in the current list of thoughts. Hopefully, any change there would make implementing mailing lists for LDAP books much easier. Though I obviously can't give a time scale for any of this as its just thoughts at the moment.

Comment 22

[Dan Mosedale (:dmosedale, :dmose)]

There's certainly value to be had here, but we're especially trying to focus on work in the core that's high-leverage to the majority of Thunderbird users, and this doesn't seem to me to qualify.  Marking as wanted-.

Comment 24

[Mike]

Thunderbird 6 and still this doesn't work? Hard to sell Thunderbird in a corporate environment without this.

Comment 25

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

Patches are, of course, welcome at any time, but please don't comment unless you have something to add that helps towards fixing the actual bug. If anyone wants to help fix this then I'd be happy to point folks in the right directions (though I suggest email me directly or the groups if you've not touched mozilla code before).