> To me, it would seem ideal for fetchPOP to be no different to the
> SMTPHandler, from the point of view of the rest of JAMES.
That's the way it is supposed to be. :-)
> I can see the difficulty in having to deal with the extraneous
> recipients of fetched messages, but I wonder if this could be
> dealt with through the use of a (v3) mail attribute?
No new attribute is necessary. The problem is simple. FetchPOP uses the
form of sendMail that takes a MimeMessage, which means that it has to rely
upon the headers, rather than building a Mail object, which already has a
property for local recipients. In other words, what you went on to propose
is already in the code. :-)
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
