> -----Original Message----- > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 14 August 2003 01:27 > To: James Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Fetchmail patch(es) > > > Steve, > > Well, it would certainly save the trouble of backporting, and > it would be > nice to get FetchMail into the v2.2 release. > > Remind me, or I can go back and review the archives: were > there any changes > in the code that would be considered controversial? By the > way, the current > Fetchmail code was written by Leo D'Angelo and Sergei.
There is nothing controversial there in my view, but I would say that wouldn't I! The primary change is to add more flexibility as to what messages are fetched and their final disposition on the POP3 server (asis, deleted, marked read). > One thing that you might want to do is change the use of X-Headers to > attributes, since this will go into v2.2+. Attributes are > available for > both v2.2 and HEAD. I would only use X-Headers for something > you want the > MUA to see. Yes, I thought about this. My concern with such an approach is that as attributes require a database, file based systems will not then be able to use fetchmail. While fetchmail is not an essential James component, deciding that any James component (in the Phoenix sense) need not support file based systems is more of a strategic decision than I alone should be taking. Hmmm. Maybe a <UseAttributes>true</UseAttributes> flag would do it. > > --- Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Brewin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13 August 2003 23:50 > To: 'Noel J. Bergman' > Subject: RE: Fetchmail patch(es) > > > Noel, > > There are only so many hours in the day and you can't be > expected to do > everything, so more overload than oversight? > > The submitted version was for James v3, but I have been > running essentially > the same code in James v2 since June. I'm happy to submit > this too if it > will help set the ball rolling. > > Both Danny's and my implementations of fetchmail are far superior to > fetchPOP, so it would be good to wean people off of that as soon as > possible. > > -- Steve > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 13 August 2003 07:48 > > To: James Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Fetchmail patch(es) > > > > > > Steve, > > > > Mostly oversight. I haven't done anything with > > FetchPOP/Fetchmail, and was > > hoping that Danny would have time to look them over, since > > they've been his > > baby to date. > > > > I still have them in my inbox, and they are also archived here: > > > > > http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=james-dev@ jakarta.apache .org&msgNo=8877 > http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED] .org&msgNo=8881 > > --- Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Brewin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 5:34 > To: 'James Developers List' > Subject: RE: cvs commit: > james-server/www/javadocs/org/apache/james/fetchmail FetchMail.html > FetchScheduler.html ReaderInputStream.html package-frame.html > package-summary.html package-tree.html package-use.html > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 06 August 2003 16:56 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: cvs commit: > > james-server/www/javadocs/org/apache/james/fetchmail FetchMail.html > > FetchScheduler.html ReaderInputStream.html package-frame.html > > package-summary.html package-tree.html package-use.html > > Which reminds me. Back in June I submitted a pretty major > patch to fetchmail > that fixed a few problems and added a number of processing > options. This > doesn't seem to have made it into the CVS. > > This may be because the committers have yet to have a chance > to look at it, > it has been intentionally passed over in favour of the current > implementation (fair enough), or it has simply been missed in > the avalanche > of work that the committers get through. > > Absolutely no criticism intended which ever scenario applies, > I'm justing > wondering what the status is. > > -- Steve > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
