<imho> i like javaMail. it is large, i believe because it addresses mail systems requirements which encompasses message generation and dispatch, and it does require jaf (java activation framework). other then that i feel it is trivial and intuitive , dare i say a joy, to use when generating and dispatching mail messages. if/when the message generation requirements expand (eg attachments, multipart, etc) then javaMail is waiting in the wings and glad to serve.
</imho> hope this helps, - james Tim O'Brien wrote: > Why can't we use the javax.mail package as in the Email patch? It is a > standard. You don't necessarily need to us the reference implementation > from Sun. Although some think it is bloated, it does provide a very > straightforward way to make MIME attachments. > > I know it would be a smop to implement a simple mail sender, but javax.mail > does much more and I didn't think Ant was the place for this. > > Tim O'Brien > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I'd be interested in seeing if anyone wants to start up a project to > implement javamail under the apache umbrella > > At 11:58 AM 6/24/00 +0200, you wrote: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > jhunter 00/06/23 19:46:18 > > > > > > Modified: . build.xml > > > Added: src/main/com/oreilly/servlet MailMessage.java > > > Log: > > > Added MailMessage. Hope people don't mind that I left it in > > > com.oreilly.servlet. > > > >Sorry, but I do. > > > >We have been preaching for years now that all java code donations to the > >ASF must: > > > > 1) contain the Apache license "only"! > > 2) have a org.apache.* package name > > > > > I did that since it's going to be a mirror > > > of what's in the larger com.oreilly.servlet package. > > > >We don't mirror stuff, Jason. We try to develop and maintain it. If you > >donate that code to us, we are free to do whatever we want with it and > >development will take place. If you mirror you fork your code: are you > >sure this is what you want to happen? > > > >NOTE: don't get me wrong, I _very_ appreciate your contributions and I'd > >love to have all that nice org.oreilly.servlet code under our umbrella, > >but we have being following this package-change practice and I picture > >this very unfair about other projects that had to change their package > >naming to adapt. > > > > > I put > > > it under the Apache license of course, and added the ASF as an > > > additional copyright holder. > > > >Again, this is unusual and unfair for the other donated projects. All > >donations imply that you move copyright to the ASF which provides legal > >coverage for you. You should place all the credit issues you want after > >the > > > >* ==================================================================== > > > >in the license. > > > > > Code can have two copyright holders, > > > meaning either party can do as they wish with the code. This lets > > > the ASF upgrade to Apache License 1.2 sometime in the future, and > > > lets me be able to use the code without thanking the ASF for code > > > I wrote. :-) > > > >There is something _very_ different between deserving credits for > >something and a copyright statement. These are totally different things > >around here. > > > >People and companies like IBM, Sun, James Tauber, Kevin Burton, James > >Davidson, Jon Stevens, Donald Ball, Ricardo Rocha, myself and many > >others are people that wrote projects or piece of projects on their own > >and _donated_ them to the ASF, giving copyright to the ASF while keeping > >credits for themselves. > > > >Now, why should you differ? > > > >Again, please, don't get me wrong: you know how strongly believe in > >giving full credits to who deserves it and I completely understand how > >important is recognition and visibility in our world. On the other hand, > >we have been following practices that are fair and cover all these > >issues nicely, allowing all software development to take place around > >here and all package naming to integrate seemlessly, giving the idea to > >users that we are all a big family of collaborating projects. > > > >So, again, while I fully appreciate your code donation, I'd like to > >kindly invite you to rethink about your licensing issues now that you > >know these things. > > > >Thank you very much. > > > >-- > >Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be > > able to give birth to a dancing star. > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London! > >------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------
