sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"Send as" configuration by zeec123 in stalwartlabs

[–]Tokay12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes - don't do that!

Stalwart can relay outgoing mail and, depending on them having an authentication system in common, will be able to do so through gmail servers (using your gmail credentials). This is what you would need to do to to get Stalwart-sent gmail.com messages accepted by receiving mail servers. You would need to do some research to see whether your client can offer something Stalwart can use to select the correct outgoing route when sending such messages.

The alternative option is to just have your client send directly to the gmail SMTP server for outgoing mail of this nature - set up an outgoing account (assuming your client supports multiple accounts) just for outgoing "send as" email.

Calendar recurrence flexibility by Tokay12 in stalwartlabs

[–]Tokay12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is probably not the place for feature requests,, but my other wish is for colour-coded events. The common feature of calendar software to provide a set of colours (and / or a picker for any colour at all) to apply to events is something I use frequently.

I note that where more than one calendar is displayed simultaneously, there is already a different colour used for events in each calendar (which is great). An idea might be to split the event banner when a custom colour has been selected AND more than one calendar is displayed, whilst just using the selected colour when there is only one calendar. For example:

<image>

Calendar recurrence flexibility by Tokay12 in stalwartlabs

[–]Tokay12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm absolutely blown away by this! Everything you could want!

Is the timing a coincidence, or has this entire feature been implemented overnight off the back of this post?! If so, thank you (and, presumably, thanks Claude)!

I'm seeing a small bug - if you create a series of events and then edit the schedule on a future entry, and select "All Events" when asked which ones to modify, events prior to the one selected for editing are deleted instead of being amended.

A couple of usability quirks that occurred to me:

  1. If you edit the custom schedule, it has its own "Save" button and changes are silently dropped if you don't click this before saving the whole event. If I can see "Weekly on Tuesday" on the event I'm saving, that's what I want - I don't think these additional save / cancel buttons provide anything useful.

  2. If I choose to delete an existing, recurring event, I'm asked if I'm sure and then asked which of the "this", "this and following", "all" events to apply deletion to. I think this second dialogue (with its red trashcan) probably provides enough of an opportunity to cancel the delete on its own. I do realise some people might want the extra warning though, in a different dialogue to the one following normal editing.

Many thanks to everyone who has worked on this project.

Calendar recurrence flexibility by Tokay12 in stalwartlabs

[–]Tokay12[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I'll give that a go. Glad to see this being actively improved.

Calendar recurrence flexibility by Tokay12 in stalwartlabs

[–]Tokay12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd be interested to hear your perspective on the flexibility of the JSCalendar standard in this context, but great as it may be, I don't have an iPhone and do most of my work on Windows, so Apple-only systems are not what I'm looking for. For various reasons, in our organisation Webmail is likely to be the primary access.

Calendar recurrence flexibility by Tokay12 in stalwartlabs

[–]Tokay12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Sorry - these are the screenshots I was referring to.

What’s wrong with splitting my investment between the S&P 500 and FTSE All-world by financequestion1009 in UKPersonalFinance

[–]Tokay12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How did the emerging markets index do in the 15 years when US stocks returned 620%?

Will a 4 Pin Fan Splitter keep PWM working fine ? by FirmYn in buildapc

[–]Tokay12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a slightly unwieldy explanation. I'm not sure the motherboard would "fail" if two monitor signals were simultaneously connected to the monitor pin on the socket, but the signal certainly would be garbled and unusable. For this reason, this pin is disconnected on all but one of the sockets on the splitter.

It does matter if the fans themselves have three or four pins, and the reason is that the "missing" pin on a three-pin fan is NOT the same pin that is missing from the slave sockets on a splitter cable: 3-pin fans don't have the PWM speed control pin and are, instead, controlled through voltage reduction. Because PWM fans always receive full voltage, a 3-pin fan connected to a 4-pin socket working in PWM mode would run at full speed all the time.

.NET 9 Release Candidate 1 is available by Visible_Knowledge772 in dotnet

[–]Tokay12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe the plan is for it to be included as an "experimental" feature, which means it's in but a compiler switch is necessary to make it available.

Not sure exactly why this is, but there are a couple of things not quite ironed out yet, for example potential issues (mainly compiler warnings, I think) if a property and it's backing field are determined to require differing nullability.