OT again... is there an IMAP expert in the house?

[Chris Gonnerman]

"Sheila King" <usenet at thinkspot.net> wrote in message
news:<a32qua.3vvfr95.1 at kserver.org>...
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 07:24:15 -0600, "Chris Gonnerman"
> <chris.gonnerman at newcenturycomputers.net> wrote in comp.lang.python in
> article <mailman.1012224450.11377.python-list at python.org>:
> >
> > The customer(s) I am trying valiantly to support want to be able to
share
> > a mailbox *concurrently*.  The Mercury and UW servers don't seem to work
> > that way.  I haven't studied the protocol so I don't know if it is even
> > possible.
>
> WHY do they want to be able to share a single mailbox? Maybe there is a
> different solution that solves their requirements/needs.

Each business has a single email address for inbound messages (orders,
quote requests, etc.) and they want very much to be able to view a complete
list of all messages from any station, including disposition (i.e. has it
been handled?)  The question of concurrency is based on the customer's
view; they can't see why they can't share the (local) mail store if they
can share other files.

One customer has an integrated Access-based system for order tracking, but
email enabling it seems to be beyond the capabilities of the current
(outside)
programmers; as the customer isn't interested in handing the development
over to me, I think at this point I'll let them put up with things as they
are.

The other customer is a small but evidently fast-growing business which has
been handling all email orders via a single computer.  The owner asked me
about installing a second station for email, and when I explained the
situation
to him he was not impressed.  Gah.

I myself would like such a thing, for us in our office.  Presently we have a
separate email address for each person, and outsiders need to know who to
send mail to in advance.  So far that hasn't been much of a problem, but it
would be nice to share...