Re: squirrelmail
Actually, we are using 1.4.2 and debian unstable running a 2.6.7
kernel. I'm not sure how mcuh that helps.
Also, the complaint from users is that if it takes more than 5 minutes
to compose a new message, when they click send they are logged out and
must relogin and retype their message. The user have been provded
with instructions on setting up the folder list refresh, but there has
to be a better way. Given the above, will the php
session_cache_expire() still work? There is no way to configure this
through squirrelmail? I found some plugin that accomplishes something
close to what I want, but I'd rather make sure there is no easier way.
Thanks for all the help,
nate
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:48:44 -0400 (EDT), Bojan Baros
<bojan@blis.dyndns.org> wrote:
> Jacob S. said:
> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:21:05 -0500
> > Nathan Kroll <krolln@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This isn't really debian specific or anything but I know that someone
> >> here will know the answer.
> >>
> >> I'd like to change the session timeout value in squirrelmail. I can't
> >> seem to find any help on google or in the squirellmail docs.
> >>
> >> I'd appreciate any help.
> >
> > I don't know what version you're using, so I'll assume 1.2.6 - the
> > version in Debian Woody.
> >
> > It looks like the session is started in src/validate.php and
> > src/webmail.php. I also notice they don't specify a session timeout, so
> > it should be defaulting to 3 hours.
> >
> > Setting a session_cache_expire() line after each session_start should
> > accomplish your desired goal. Read the following link if you're not
> > familiar with session_cache_expire() in php:
> >
> > http://us4.php.net/manual/en/function.session-cache-expire.php
> >
> > HTH,
> > Jacob
>
> If you set the left folder to refresh periodically, you will not have that
> problem, plus you will get new mail updates and so on.
>
> Bojan
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: