Doing what PostPath has done

[anuradha_mihsra]

Hi,

I hope this is the right place to post this question.

We are trying to integrate the zimbra client with our own Mail Server. I have seen what Postpath has done - they have modified the zimbra server code so that where the zimbra server would be looked up for login/creating an appointment, they go to the postpath server for the same.

First of all am I correct in understanding what has been done? I would like to do the same. What would be easier?
1. Write your own SoapServlet which intercepts all zimbra client SOAP calls and returns the required JSON to the client OR
2. Modify the ZimbraServer code (let the existing soapservlet handle and parse the soap calls. Simply modify files like Auth.java, CreateAppointment.java and make them go to my own server?)

I would really appreciate if someone can throw some light on this.

TIA

Anuradha

[dijichi2]

I remember this company coming up on forums a while ago. Can anyone from Zimbra shed light on how they are using Zimbra web interface code without displaying logos as demanded in the ZPL?

[bhickey]

Perhaps Zimbra has some sort of dual-licensing going on?

[KevinH]

Originally Posted by dijichi2

I remember this company coming up on forums a while ago. Can anyone from Zimbra shed light on how they are using Zimbra web interface code without displaying logos as demanded in the ZPL?

If they are not displaying the Zimbra logo(s) as specified in the ZPL then they are in violation of the ZPL.

[KevinH]

Originally Posted by anuradha_mihsra

1. Write your own SoapServlet which intercepts all zimbra client SOAP calls and returns the required JSON to the client

2. Modify the ZimbraServer code (let the existing soapservlet handle and parse the soap calls. Simply modify files like Auth.java, CreateAppointment.java and make them go to my own server?)

1) This is a possible architechture but as part of the ZPL you'd still be required to display the Zimbra logo(s) as specfied in the ZPL. You can get the latest copy here:

http://www.zimbra.com/license/zimbra...cense_1.2.html

2) This may also work, but in general I think it will be a bit harder as you have to change more code.

Both approaches obviously require you to replicate bug for bug the way the ZimbraServer responds to the SOAP/JSON requests from the webclient code.

[bhickey]

Regarding the PostPath web GUI, I had assumed PostPath had worked out a legitimate licensing plan with Zimbra.

Hopefully now that Zimbra is aware of the issue, they will be able to protect their intellectual property.

[anuradha_mihsra]

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for your reply.

Problem is that its very difficult to figure out what all the zimbra client expects from the server - I need to track every thing using firebug. This is why i was more keen on the second approach. Basically I need to do a demo soon with some very basic features. Although there is the soap.txt files in the docs folder, they arent very helpful.

What approach would you follow? (Displaying the logo wouldnt be a problem - we would of course follow the license).

Regards
Anuradha

[KevinH]

Originally Posted by anuradha_mihsra

What approach would you follow? (Displaying the logo wouldnt be a problem - we would of course follow the license).

I'd just migrate the data to Zimbra. Seriously it's not something we designed the WebUI to do. It was only intended to be used with a Zimbra server. Any approach you take will run into problems and be very painful to upgrade or support for the longer term. soap-*.txt are the right files to look at but your right we don't keep a document mapping the way and order those calls are made from the web client.

[RyecoAaron]

Cisco is buying PostPath for $215 million... Still no Zimbra logo on the webmail client???

[Andy from Zimbra]

> Cisco is buying PostPath for $215 million... Still no Zimbra logo on the webmail client???

As noted earlier by KevinH, if they're not using the logo (when distributing the Zimbra Web UI as part of a deployment to customers), then they're in violation of our Yahoo Public License (formerly Zimbra Public License). My guess is the assumption stated earlier that PostPath wasn't using the logo was from screenshots and demos they gave where they didn't include the logo. Arguably that in itself isn't a violation of the license, as screenshots and demos aren't quite the same as actually 'distributing' the solution. (They seemed to have almost none, if any, customer deployments yet, so it's hard to know how whether they were in fact adhering to the license when distributing the solution to customers.)

With that said, we have no doubt that if Cisco chooses to continue using the Zimbra Web UI with PostPath, they'll do so in accordance with the license.