worthwhile, yes. Although the mailet API has bounce() in the mailet context I'm pretty sure that creating a bounce processor which would allow people to configure bounces would be worthwhile. I think you'd have to alter all the bounce() methods to send their mail to the bounce processor though.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 06 September 2002 15:46 > To: James Developers List > Subject: RE: Local vs Remote delivery failures > > > > > Why isn't the handling consistent? > > probably because this is an Open Source project, and any number of > different > > people have any number of different ideas. > > That was my first thought, but checking the code and CVS first, > it appeared > to come from the same origin. So I thought that there might be > some deeper > reason for why it was handled two different ways; a reason I had missed. > > Similarly with my question about instrumenting LocalDelivery and > RemoteDelivery to accept a processor name for failure notification. I > wasn't making the assumption that it hadn't been considered in the past. > Instead I was asking. > > Should I take your responses to mean that you don't know of any > reasons for > the difference, and that you believe it might be worthwhile (post-2.1?) to > make such a change? > > --- Noel > > > -- > 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]>
