If you want to distribute a derivative copy of James, then you cannot call it James. As for reworking the code, putting James code here and there, a maildir implementation, whatever else... all that's just fine and great. In fact some of those might be interesting patches as others could be interested.
Anyway, again nothing you've described is wrong. But where are you trying to go and what are you asking of us?
-- Serge Knystautas President Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phillip Smith wrote:
This is my first post to this list so if it’s in the wrong place, please advise.
I have re-implemented org.apache.james.smtpserver.SMTPHandler to separate the parsing of the stream from the handling of its contents and to be configured for either blocking or non-blocking mode. I intend to do the same for the org.apache.james.pop3server.POP3Handler and IMAP. It has been recently decided to add a MailRepository for a modified MailDir format. I know the James is built on the Phoenix (Avalon), and allows its components to be pluggable – but at want point does it stop being James, if it stops at all? I still intend to use the Mailet functionality, the incoming spooling, and the remote forwarding capabilities. I’ve put non-James classes (generic parsing) in my package namespace (<toplevel-domain>.protocol.smtp, etc). I’ve put James classes in (<toplevel-domain>.james., etc). Is this appropriate? I don’t want to call it James if it isn’t, and vise versa.
Suggestions, advice, guidance requested
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
