original greenmail license discussion is here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/oozie-dev/201407.mbox/%[email protected]%3E but you' re right, version 1.4 has a Apache licence: https://github.com/greenmail-mail-test/greenmail/blob/master/license.txt
But despite of that the feature discussion is the important one. Have not looked yet on greenmail 1.4 but i would like to use a "real" mailserver to test the javamail impl. and james seems to be the perfect candidate: its an apache project, its (mostly) rfc compliant, its suitable for unittesting and possibly synergy effects if the project use each other. The big problem of geronimo javamail (impl, not spec) is the (almost complete) absence of unittests. Writing these should not be limited by a fake implementation like greenmail especially for testing IMAP (which is itself a mess already :-) On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Hendrik. > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Hendrik Dev <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi Kevan, >> >> thanks, wil try to split commits. >> >> About greenmail replacement: >> Two reasons, mainly because greenmail does not support advanced imap >> features (like IDLE) and does not support some basics like Pop3 APOP and >> AUTH=PLAIN (both are buggy in the current geronimo javamail version) and a >> lot more. Other reason is the unclear license situation for greenmail. > > > Thanks for the info. I have no problems with a switch to James. I just want > to see the change discussed. This helps others understand, both now and, > more importantly, in the future. > > It's my understanding that there is a new greenmail release. I haven't > looked at it, but my understanding is that it should clear up the licensing > questions. Again, not arguing for or against. Just making sure facts are > laid out... > > --kevan -- Hendrik Saly (salyh, hendrikdev22) @hendrikdev22 PGP: 0x22D7F6EC
