Is this really worth supporting? Given that other servers will mungle the case, you can't use it reliably to indicate different behavior. I can see not mungling addresses as they go through James, but why would an administrator WANT to enforce this harsh behavior on addresses it processes?

--
Serge Knystautas
Loki Technologies
http://www.lokitech.com/

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Danny,

I believe that you are referring to RFC 2822, a companion to RFC 2821.
Interestingly, there are comments in RFC 822 regarding case handling that
are no longer in RFC 2822.  Instead, RFC 2822 now says that "how addressing
is used and how messages are transported to a particular host is covered in
the mail transport document [RFC2821].  These mechanisms are outside of the
scope of this document.  The local-part portion is a domain dependent
string.  In addresses, it is simply interpreted on the particular host as a
name of a particular mailbox."  RFC 2821 then mandates than transport be
case-insensitive, but encourages servers to not require case sensitivity.

We can make this behavior optional by exposing the configuration to the
Mailet API.  Do you have a preference by which we do so?  Should we add one
or more of the <usename> configuration attributes to the MailetContext
attributes, e.g.,

	attributes.put(RFC2822Headers.LOCALPART_CASEINSENSITIVE, ignoreCase);

which could then be picked up by any Matcher or Mailet?

	--- Noel

-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 17:16
To: James Developers List
Subject: RE: Case sensitivity "Bug"?


What I meant is

<snip!>

I agree with your interpretation, however as the RFC which defines mail
addresses (I forget which) says that local part IS case sensitive we should
take the route suggested by the stuff you quote, i.e. allow case
insensitivity. My only point is that we should make this clear by making it
optional.

d.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to