On 8/18/05, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Anagha,
>
> I thought about a MatcherMessageHandler.
> This handler would take a standard james matcher configuration as an
> argument and an additional configuration could say how to reply based on the
> result of the matcher.
> E.g:
>
Sounds like a great idea. I will keep your suggestion in mind.
~anagha
On 7/26/05, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Since there is no clearly consensus as to whether JAMES
> > should be rearchitected around MINA, I am implementing the
> > design I proposed.
>
> I
> Hi all,
>
> Since there is no clearly consensus as to whether JAMES
> should be rearchitected around MINA, I am implementing the
> design I proposed.
I think most of fast fail code should not *depend* on (the transport) MINA
(while I would like to have a mina based smtp handler).
But I'm for
Thats right, work on the design you proposed, thats what we expected.
I would suggest you work on the trunk, not on the branch.
|-+>
| | Anagha Mudigonda |
| | |
| ||
| |
