Hello Quan
+1 for option 1
And one user for the System session. I got many case in past that need
session for "no one"
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 10:20 AM Quan tran hong
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Recently when I working with the RSpamD module, I found it is hard to
> access a message with just a mess
Hello Quan
> Otherwise, we would need to rethink the username/component in maibox
event serialization' structure.
That would seem more clean to me.
Regards,
Benoit
On 04/08/2022 17:55, Quan tran hong wrote:
Hi Benoit,
First of all, thank you for your feedback.
I would prefer a `createUnr
Hi Benoit,
First of all, thank you for your feedback.
I would prefer a `createUnrestrictedSession`.
> While speaking about names "System types" does not sound relevant
> either. Maybe "component" ?
I agree.
How this change would interact with maibox event serialization and the
> event bus?
+1 for option 1
More details inlined.
How this change would interact with maibox event serialization and the
event bus?
Regards,
Benoit
On 04/08/2022 10:20, Quan tran hong wrote:
Hi folks,
Recently when I working with the RSpamD module, I found it is hard to
access a message with just a m
Hi Benoit,
Thank you for your feedback.
Answers are inline as well but overall it looks good feedback to me.
Best regards,
Rene.
On 22/01/2020 12:10, Tellier Benoit wrote:
Hi René,
My answers are inlined...
Best regard,
Benoit
On 22/01/2020 10:21, Rene Cordier wrote:
Hi guys,
I would li
Hi René,
My answers are inlined...
Best regard,
Benoit
On 22/01/2020 10:21, Rene Cordier wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I would like to bring on the table some proposition to refactor our
> session usage within James.
>
> # Context
> [...]
> Then I tried to use a `MailboxMapper` defined in the mailbox
