> - I still don't know what and if there is a gain in > functionality. I haven't > heard anyone want a db Backend for newsgroup mail. Why build, if > there is no > known advantage ? On the other hand if someone has a real world need that > would be motivation.
> - The NNTP repository is a lot simpler. Minimal coupling. > > What do you think ? Frankly thats a good enough argument for defering it. > > Here is a proposal for your vote: > Have a separate distribution for NNTP Server. -1 with the following comment.. I agree with your reasoning and I will change my vote to +1 if we can, instead, provide a single distribution of James, and an alternative set of configurations which will allow it to run as NNTP only. (perhaps with a command line installer with options to install NNTP, MAIL or BOTH) I would not like to see James fragment into several seperate products, I'd be happier if we focused this effort on making it simple to enable and disable blocks. Alternatively.. we should produce a James container, and seperately distributable blocks for each protocol.. > All other parts will be > disabled. Advantages are: > - Provides a minimum configuration changes needed package for users that > only need NNTP. > - This help the James brand and increase the number of users. > - I personally feel that POP3-SMTP and NNTP are of interest to > (mostly)separate groups of users. I also feel that the users would want to > try POP3-SMTP and NNTP Server at different times, and are less lilkely to > try them together. One precedent is INN Server. It includes NNTP > Server but > not POP-SMTP Servers. James-NNTP could be targeted as an > alternative to INN. > > Harmeet > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
