Le 08/07/2020 à 14:40, David Leangen a écrit :
> Sorry, I do have one more question in response to your email…
>
> You wrote:
>
>> In my opinions we should document "How to write hooks with the
>> protocols/smtp library", "How to plug such hooks into a running James
>> server"
>>
>> Then "How to
Sorry, I do have one more question in response to your email…
You wrote:
> In my opinions we should document "How to write hooks with the
> protocols/smtp library", "How to plug such hooks into a running James
> server"
>
> Then "How to write commands for the protocols/smtp library" (and how to
> I gonna try my best, given my time constraints :-)
Thank you!
This is all very good information, which allows me to peel one more layer of
the onion.
Likely my next batch of questions will be in a separate email thread, as I
think we have exhausted the concept of “James SMTP Model”.
In the
Le 06/07/2020 à 14:12, David Leangen a écrit :
> Thanks Benoit.
>
> Now, since I already have your attention on this topic, please allow me to
> really push so I can reach some kind of resolution. The resolution will allow
> me to figure out how to move forward with several things. Since I have
Thanks Benoit.
Now, since I already have your attention on this topic, please allow me to
really push so I can reach some kind of resolution. The resolution will allow
me to figure out how to move forward with several things. Since I have been a
bit stuck the past few days (and growing frustrat
Le 06/07/2020 à 13:12, David Leangen a écrit :
> [...]
>> I believe people are interested by a working SMTP implementation where
>> they can "plug" there behaviors or add the commands they miss.
> I am beginning to think that we may have a fundamentally differing
> understanding of what an API i
> I don't think people are interested by an API allowing them to implement
> SMTP themselves. (That is quite some work!)
LOL indeed, and I completely agree. But I don’t think that’s the point I’m
trying to make.
Some organizations may want to create an implementation.
The James team may wish to
Le 06/07/2020 à 07:13, David Leangen a écrit :
> Hey Benoit,
>
>> Now, that being said, I believe we should always define a "purpose" for
>> an API, and here we mixes things in my opinion.
> Yes, very good point. I agree 100%
>
>
>
>> Are we defining an API for building any arbitrary SMTP server?
Hey Benoit,
> Now, that being said, I believe we should always define a "purpose" for
> an API, and here we mixes things in my opinion.
Yes, very good point. I agree 100%
> Are we defining an API for building any arbitrary SMTP server?
My somewhat vague thought is: I get the impression that
Hi Eugen,
You will find my answers inlined.
>
> I believe you make the assumption that people use and want to use the
> full plethora of protocols we have in James.
>
> Sort of "All or nothing" approach.
>
> Why do you think it is so?
>
> I would argue that we should make little assumptions
Hi David,
As I exposed it earlier, protocols-smtp mixes the protocol
implementation and the interface it defines. We would benefit from
separating the too.
Now, that being said, I believe we should always define a "purpose" for
an API, and here we mixes things in my opinion.
Are we defining an A
Hi there,
I think that my thoughts about components seem to be quite aligned with those
of Eugen, so I won’t really repeat anything here. I agree with pretty much
everything he writes about the advantages of having clean components. Perhaps
the only thing I would point out is that even with cl
Hi Benoit,
La 05.07.2020 07:32, Tellier Benoit a scris:
>
> Le 02/07/2020 à 23:03, Eugen Stan a écrit :
>> Hello David,
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Agian, I do think protocols should be independent since they have
>> different rules and share only some technical aspects.
> +1
>
> Actually IMAP is independen
Hello David,
Le 03/07/2020 à 04:30, David Leangen a écrit :
>
> [...]
>
>> I don't believe the code is super clean but it does work and is quite
>> efficient and fast.
>
> Yes, that is important, but again, this comment about being “efficient and
> fast” seems perfectly valid for an implementat
Le 02/07/2020 à 23:03, Eugen Stan a écrit :
> Hello David,
>
> [...]
>
> Agian, I do think protocols should be independent since they have
> different rules and share only some technical aspects.
+1
Actually IMAP is independent.
LMTP is based on SMTP implementation.
A current limitation of
> Since I am pretty much stuck with the documentation efforts (as I have
> mentioned I need more input from the community if I am to move forward), what
> I think I’ll try to do next is write an “independent” API for SMTP. […]
I spent a few hours on this today, but already I think I am going to
Hi Eugen,
> Quite a long email :) .
Hehehe, yes. Good thing I stopped when I did. Glad it got some dialogue going.
I very much appreciate your reply.
Just a few comments inline.
> I believe the protocols share the protocols-api beacuse they are
> all/mostly all line based protocols.
>
> Lik
Hello David,
Quite a long email :) .
I'll try to come up with some answers.
From what I recall, the protocols where implemented by Norman Maurer
mostly.
However you can't see that from the git history since it has been
removed with the migration from SVN -> GIT.
I do believe that is a big lega
Thanks to those who have replied so far.
I am going to try to ask better questions. What I am trying to figure out is
how James models the SMTP concepts in the code. I am very particular in that I
think it is extremely important to make the code as “readable” as possible. I
wanted to hear the
Hello,
It seems you missed at least one common use case. An external SMTP
server should be allowed to contact your SMTP server to send you emails
related to your domains. This is the remote delivery part, but for your
own server.
For this use case you need a SMTP server that is listening on
Hello David,
I'll give it a try, but my knowledge is not that extensive at the moment.
SMTP is a protocol for for transfering email (as the name suggests :D )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol .
A short, probably not entirely correct summary follows, with references
to
> My first questions are about SMTP.
After a bit of resisting, I finally bit the bullet and downloaded IntelliJ. I
am now able to compile and navigate my way through the code in an IDE, so I
should be able to make better progress.
> * How does James model SMTP?
> * Where can I find SMTP rela
22 matches
Mail list logo
