Danny,
I understand that you are upset at losing e-mail, but I believe that your
diagnosis is wrong.
Prior to JamesSpoolManager.java v1.11, that class included the following:
- //Add a Null mailet with All matcher to the processor
- // this is so if a message gets to the end of a
processor,
- // it will always be ghosted
- Matcher matcher = matchLoader.getMatcher("All",
mailetcontext);
- Mailet mailet
- = mailetLoader.getMailet("Null", mailetcontext,
null);
- processor.add(matcher, mailet);
as you can see from the CVS. The "Terminating Mailet" is exactly the same
behavior, except that it provides unique names ("Terminating%Matcher%Name"
instead of "All" and "Terminating%Mailet%Name" instead of "Null"), so that
it becomes painfully obvious as to the nature of the problem. The
responsibility for adding those to the processor was moved from
JamesSpoolManager to LinearProcessor.
Regardless of the change, all e-mail reaching the end of a processor would
have been ghosted. Because of the change, the nature of the problem is made
plain. I don't know why you believe that e-mail reaching the end of a
processor "fell through", or to where it would have fallen.
Are you proposing that a new message store be added for e-mail reaching the
end of a processor, rather than ghosting them as has always been done?
--- Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:34
To: James Developers List
Subject: terminating mailet
I've just lost 8hrs of mail thanks to the "terminating mailet"
I remember some discussions baout this, I now have an opinion.. which is
that the terminating mailet is a royal pain in the arse, it should either
set the state to something like "dead-letter" or it should be omited and
allow mail to fall through like it used to.
IMHO deleting mail just because it hasn't been handled correctly is overly
harsh punishment for poor configuration.
d.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>