Closed Bug 359320 Opened 18 years ago Closed 6 years ago

Address Book: Allow Address Book files to be placed in arbitrary locations

Categories

(Penelope Graveyard :: General, enhancement, P5)

Product:
Penelope Graveyard
Component:
General
Type:
enhancement

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
RESOLVED WONTFIX

People

(Reporter: mdudziak, Assigned: gwenger)

References

(Depends on 1 open bug)

Details

Should Penelope allow you to place your Address Book files in arbitrary locations (like on networked drives) so that they can be shared by multiple people? Vote for this bug if you would like to see this feature in Penelope.
Allow shared address book over network.
This really seems like a "no-brainer" to me. Multiple address books would be good too.
This would be good, but once again, perhaps should wait until existing Eudora features have been duplicated first.
This feature is definitely needed, it is a perfect solution for small and medium size businesses to share contacts. This feature is required before we would move our organization from Eudora to Penelope.
I'd like to see this but I'd also like to see a plan for how you're going to implement reliable file locking across different system and network drives.
I agree that the ability to have shared access to a) address books, and b) mailboxes, is important. But the title of the bug perhaps presumes too much in terms of what is the best way to accomplish that. The current system, where a "Eudora Folder" alias can be placed in the expected location and the real folder be placed elsewhere is, while useful, a work-around. It might be worth some thinking whether there is a better solution to shared mailboxes and address books than having them be dictated by their location. For one thing, it would be good to control sharing on an address book by address book (and mailbox by mailbox) level so that one can have a 'personal' address book that might reside locally (or in a network location where only the user has access) and a global address book shared by a workgroup or enterprise. Maybe good LDAP renders this unimportant, I don't know. I don't mean to criticize any particular solution... I'm just offering food for thought.
Adam, I think you are expanding this topic beyond what it was originally intended. I don't think anyone wanted mailboxes to be treated the same way. If you want to share mailboxes and store them in a remote location then you should look at IMAP. That sounds like Outlook talk to me. The feature we are speaking of currently exists in Eudora. The setting in the Eudora ini file is called "ExtraNicknamesDir". The value of this setting is a path where extra address books can reside. In our company, we created a share on a server that is readonly to everyone and configured each copy of Eudora with the ExtraNicknamesDir value set to that network path. The result is a set of shared address books of all the employees of the company with mailing lists for each department. LDAP does not render this feature unimportant. To manage this sort of address book, you just allow one user write access to the share and they can then edit the addresses in their Eudora. LDAP is much more confusing and not very intuitive. As far as thought in how it is implemented, that is beyond the scope of this thread. This tread was only meant for folks to express support for the feature. If you wanted opinions how it should be implemented, I would recommend using SQLite. SQLite has become an integral part of Firefox development and I presume it is also part of the future versions of Thunderbird. Most likely you will still need to setup the security of your network share in order to prevent unauthorized users from editing the shared address books.
Depends on: 143451
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Us OSX folk like it when stuff intergrates ... hence postings for Spotlight searching. I guess an natural extension of this would be Address Book intergration - at least an option to use OSX's Address Book for Eudora.
Assignee: mozilla-bugs → gwenger
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
I think global (and therefore network stored) address books is a needed option for company use... You should consider to track this in Thunderbird core, not as an extension (Penelope)!
(In reply to comment #9) > I think global (and therefore network stored) address books is a needed option > for company use... > You should consider to track this in Thunderbird core, not as an extension > (Penelope)! > Depends on the size of your company and platform usage... I've always used Ph, and Eudora remembers most recent addresses used. Adding Qi/Ph support to the Tbird baseline is better, IMHO, in a mid-sized to enterprise level environment. -- Tim (BTW - Hi Matt!)
(In reply to comment #10) > Depends on the size of your company and platform usage... Of course ;-) > I've always used Ph, and Eudora remembers most recent addresses used. > > Adding Qi/Ph support to the Tbird baseline is better, IMHO, in a mid-sized to > enterprise level environment. I don't know much about Qi/Ph but in that case I would prefer to finish (that is to add write support) for LDAP first; it seems that this is much more common... My suggestion is more targeted for (smaller) departments, where a shared address book is sufficient.
(In reply to comment #0) YES! My organization depends heavily on exactly that feature in Eudora. In fact, we create our centralized Eudora distribution lists from an Access data base, as the format is plain ascii and easy to figure out. Is there a way for me to add my vote for this feature, or does this comment do it automatically?
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #0) > > YES! My organization depends heavily on exactly that feature in Eudora. In > fact, we create our centralized Eudora distribution lists from an Access data > base, as the format is plain ascii and easy to figure out. > > Is there a way for me to add my vote for this feature, or does this comment do > it automatically? > You need to actually 'vote'. You do that toward the top where it says: Votes: 30 (show) (vote) Click the 'vote' link. Matt
The ability to separate Mailboxes/Data from the Application is critical to myself and my clients. Being able to access mailboxes from multiple locations, even install more than one copy of the program for different users and place mailboxes and data in a unique folder for each user. This are musts for myself and my clients. I just tried the 8.0 beta release, I didn't spend much time, but it just looked like and installed like Thunderbird with none of the key Eudora Features, back to Eudora 7.1.09... BTW, all my Clients and myself have Paid Versions. That's how much we like Eudora. I am going to contribute to the Penelope Project in hopes these short comings will be addressed, and as I see more "Eudora" I'll encourage my clients to contribute as well...
Priority: -- → P5
Any updates on this?
Penelope didn't see any activity in the vcs for the last 8 years, closing.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.