Talk:SquirrelMail

Update

Good work BirdbrainedPhoenix! StephenFalken 12:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nutsmail

Nutsmail is not "3rd party implementation of SquirrelMail". It is GPL abuse and maybe even violation. See their EULA

It can't be violation because the source and binaries are the same, so they can't not ship source to anyone they ship binaries to. Their EULA is unenforceable because the very act of distributing a set of files which can only work with Squirrelmail means that their right to use Squirrelmail at all is revoked should they try to prevent Nutsmail's redistribution. In fact, such distribution implicitly licensed Nutsmail itself under the GPL.

This is hardly surprising. Quite a lot of weenies fail to understand what the GPL obligates one to do. The important thing is not to give them any free advertising. Chris Cunningham 12:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/archive/index.php/t-420290.html . Yet they are trying to enforce their copyrights with images. Nutsmail tries to abuse GPL by linking copyrighted binary objects (images) to GPLed scripts. Theoretically scripts can function without images, but interface will look broken. All features listed in their pages are provided by some SquirrelMail plugin. SquirrelMail 1.4.x skins can't be implemented without lots of mofications in core scripts. I am former SquirrelMail developer and I do think that Nutsmail abuses GPL. It is hard to prove, but if they do that to my plugins or my copy of SquirrelMail, they will be stopped.(Tokul 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

notability

At least one editor seems to have confused notability with existence. There are about 20,000 packages provided in each of the major Linux distributions. Probably no more than 5% of those are notable Tedickey (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Every time I want to learn something about a port (I use FreeBSD), I am very happy to see a Wikipedia entry on it. Often, I find an encyclopedia style of description to be better than the description on the port's own web site. I see no problem if all of the (less than) 20,000 ports have a Wikipedia entry. Squirrelmail is a widely used web mail client (including ~737,000 Google results when searching on "Squirrelmail"), one which has been in existence for a very long time, and it fully deserves a Wikipedia entry. I am curious as to what contribution to an improved state of the world would be made if you somehow managed to remove the Squirrelmail entry from Wikipedia? How will this lead to a better world? (Iv Ray, July 26, 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.221.14 (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

hmm - so far, there's been a tiny bit of effort spent on finding evidence of notability, and a lot of verbiage attacking me. Tedickey (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Your saying Squirrelmail doesn't meet the wiki standards for having an article but every man and woman that hits a television screen does? I would say less then 1% of those are notable or will even exist after one or 2 shows yet they all seem to have wiki articles. Squrrielmail is probably the most well-known and secure webmail program used today.Woods01 (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's notable, you'll find it simple to provide reliable sources discussing it (no anonymous blogs or random newsgroup comments of course). Tedickey (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There are in fact lots of web articles (and print magazine articles) I've seen over the years that compare SquirrelMail to this and that different webmail package and there are endless numbers of HOWTOs that show how to build an email system that often contains SquirrelMail. However, I don't think those kinds of links are relevant to the content (they don't necessarily serve as appropriate footnotes for anything) of the Wikipedia page that describes this software. Pdontthink 22 July 2010

It's not notable because it's included in some Linux distributions. It's notable because lots of ISPs use it to handle webmail, and people will come here for info when they get an unexpected Squirrelmail error page. That's why I arrived here. --Ef80 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

odd - coming to Wikipedia looking for explanations is something I wouldn't do. About all it's useful for is a guide to further reading Tedickey (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a disingenuous response. It doesn't matter if Ef80 arrived here for odd reasons or not. The point is that, as Ef80 noted, SquirrelMail is used by many ISPs, universities, businesses, and individuals who host their own email. My own email INBOX each morning (as a maintainer of this software) attests to the continued widespread use of SquirrelMail (not always branded as such, which might be why Joe Public won't always know about it, but mail system administrators almost always do). To me, it seems like Tedickey is the only one who wants to take this page down. Pdontthink 22 July 2010

Given that you're the author of the page, it's unlikely that you're presenting a neutral point of view Tedickey (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If SquirrelMail is not notable what other webmail software can be considered notable using the same parameters? Hypertrek (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Me thinks, what other web mail is worth running? ISPs use it, hobbiests like me use it. Reasonably easy to setup. Even used it in businesses. It certainly deserves a Wiki entry. DaveA 23 July 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.168.233 (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Recap'ing the various comments: one or more distinct individuals states that they're satisfied users, and want to have a page reflecting their position Tedickey (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Tedickey: be respectful of other posters. Your (groundless) stride remark is totally useless in this discussion, and won't help us establish notability. --Lou Crazy (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested to see that someone takes the time to improve it; however so far the nature of the responses in this discussion hasn't focused on improvement, but argument. Tedickey (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this whole section of the talk page was focused on argument for the sake of argument. Read the first entry dated march 13. It's not an exercise in improvement, just an attack on previous editors.

--Lou Crazy (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Following your suggestion, let's make Wikipedia topics for all 20,000 of those packages, since they meet your implicit guideline for notability Tedickey (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Me thinks this discussion has no relevance to the Talk section of Squirrel Mail, as stated at the top of this page by Wikipedia: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SquirrelMail article." To the extent that it brings attention to Squirrelmail, it has value. But as a Wikipedia Talk contribution, it is off-topic. My $0,000,000.02's worth. FluffyNose (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2010 (EST)