why not o.a.mail.util? Or am I bringing this navel gazing session back round to the start again!
d. > -----Original Message----- > From: Serge Knystautas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 03 March 2004 22:30 > To: James Developers List > Subject: Re: Need location for new class: o.a.javamail or o.a.mailet > > > Steve Brewin wrote: > > nice! did you write that in windows or on a sun box running solaris? > > > > In truth, like you, I don't feel very strongly about this. The original > > intent was to find a package name convention which would > indicate a set of > > functionality that specialized/extended JavaMail types without > adding James > > specific dependencies. o.a.james.util.mail would do the same > thing, while > > avoiding your concerns and those of Noel, who I recollect, > wanted to avoid > > o.a.mail. > > sounds good to me. this thread has inspired me to write all my listserv > notes in lowercase. :) > > -- > serge knystautas > president > lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com > p. 301.656.5501 > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
