> Have you read RFC 1939? The mailbox name is "a string > identifying a mailbox > (required), which is of significance ONLY to the server."
But that doesn't prevent the use of the whole address, however doing so would require changes to local delivery. >Honestly, I'd love to can file system user > repositories in favor of at least using HyperSonicSQL bundled with James, > but there does not appear to be any consensus to do that. There is consensus, I believe, in extending choice. If you want to use HyperSonic you can, I use MySQL, many others will be happy with the file system. IMO concerns seperate such that James should be capable of using several different storage providers (RDBMs's and filesystems from different OS's) but not restrict choice. Then the decision regarding what to use becomes, rightly, an implementation decision and isn't influenced unduly by James. I would be very much against having any kind of thirdparty software specified as a run-time dependancy for storage, hence the 100% java filesystem gets my vote even though I don't use it. > > otherwise the mail server returns a User Unknown > > message of some type. > > Ah! Gotcha. You want to return a 550, but I believe that you > are supposed > to say that it is denied, not that it is unknown. it is better anti-spam practice not to indicate invalidity in a 550 message, James doesn't validate addresses at all, read http://jakarta.apache.org/james/FAQ.html#2 In fact James performs no pre-processing of mail during the SMTP transaction apart from checking the basic syntax of the SMTP conversation itself. The possibility of adding more complex behaviour to this element, and of adding virtual hosting to the whole mail system have been under discussion for at least a year but keep failing to reach concensus on any specific scheme, and in the meantime no commiter has taken the bull by the horns and implemented any stop-gap measures. d. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
