[ale] One email address, multiple users

[Richard Bronosky]

Jim, round robin would require a file that logs the last mailbox used. What
might be easier and more effective would be for each incoming email to go to
the box with the fewest entries. I would do it with bash within my procmail
recipe.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was mulling about this approach but I could wrap my head around how
> to do a round robin in procmail.
>
> not that I'm any good at all with procmail...
>
> If you have any procmail scripts that do something like this please share!!
>
> PS. glad to see you posting again on ALE. It's been a long time - welcome
> back!
>
> 2009/11/18 Björn Gustafsson <bg-ale at bjorng.net>:
> > If you wanted to follow that approach, you could even go so far as to
> > write a procmail rule that does a round-robin delivery of messages
> > into three different folders, one per person/workstation.  Then they'd
> > each log in with the same mail account, but just look at a different
> > "personal" folder.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:54 PM, PairOfTwins <PairOfTwins at mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> >> Mike:
> >>
> >> If they don't have much in the budget, this dragging emails to folders
> >> idea sounds like a quick but effective solution.
> >>
> >> I'm unclear on where the outgoing emails would end up.  Could each
> >> "Inbox" have a corresponding "Sent" folder?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Tom
> >> ===========================
> >> Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 21:28 -0500, PairOfTwins wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Gang:
> >>>
> >>>> A local business takes orders online (about 150 per day, each order a
> >>>> separate email) and processes them from 1 workstation.  They'd like to
> >>>> have 3 workstations processing that same batch of incoming emails.
>  The
> >>>> goal is for each user to see which emails had been responded to, and
> >>>> process only the ones that hadn't.
> >>>
> >>>> My basic approach would be an IMAP setup.  Any better idea?  More
> >>>> sophisticated solution?
> >>>
> >>> Honestly...  IMAP is a great idea, but...  You should make queue's
> (IMAP
> >>> folders) for each person.  Each person grabs a message and pulls it
> into
> >>> their queue and then they are responsible for it.  Otherwise, it will
> >>> just become too intractable trying to depend on read and responded to
> >>> flags.  If they fail to handle it, that's a problem but, at least, you
> >>> know who claimed it.  The alternative is a dispatcher who routes
> >>> messages to the queues and assigns them out.  Just doing it in a single
> >>> IMAP mailbox as a free for all is going to be a mess.
> >>>
> >>> Not saying IMAP is the best idea here (but for small operations it very
> >>> well might be) but if you want to use IMAP, this is how I would do it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Tom
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> > See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> James P. Kinney III
> Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>



-- 
.!# RichardBronosky #!.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20091119/f612c49d/attachment-0001.html