On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 08:48 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Malcolm wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 14:27 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote:
Was curious if anyone has seen/used any kind of auto-setup scripts for large amounts of users. I have a couple of hundred pine/mutt users that I intend to move over to evolution sooner rather than later.
I would like to create their email accounts automatically, and not have to setup each one seperately as they login.
Sean
I've written some Python scripts to make it easier to work with Evolution's configuration information, in the hope of automating mass deployments of Evolution.
[...]
I've tested this, and had it working for an Evolution 2.0 deployment. I suspect the approach will break under some circumstances, and with different versions of Evolution. Comments and patches welcome.
Hey, this and Mark's LDAP gconf backend are a really nice start. What's currently missing for my environment is PERSONALIZE_SERVERNAME as there are god-knows-how-many different servers around the company.
Thanks; sorry about the delay in replying.
From a brief reading of the patch it looks good, but I haven't got it to
apply yet. Please can you resend this as an attachment rather than inline? I tried fixing up the wordwraps and whitespace but Python hates me :-(
Oh well.. this adds optional PERSONALIZE_SERVERNAME and PERSONALIZE_MAILBOXNAME settings to it - the mailbox name isn't necessarily same as username. Oh and the mailbox name can contain dots in it so the mailboxRegex also tweaked. Didn't test this in action but based on visual inspection of the results it seems to do what it's supposed to.
Ideally we'd have a test suite to go with this; it would be nice to have it verify on "make test" that the output of personalization is as expected.
Further todo: currently only the Mail Account entry is fixed, other places potentially needing fixing of username and server name are Tasks-, Addressbook- and Calendar Source.
It should already fixup the username; it would be the server name that would need fixing in that case. Further patches welcome!
Dave