On 8/17/05, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My personal opinion about this security issue is that handler writers are > developers. They got an interface and should use it. If they cast to the > real class we can't grant them it will work but I don't see any problem in > doing that. > IMHO the change will clean up the code and I think it's better to have > cleaned code.
I agree with you. I will make the change > > I'm not sure but maybe most of the SMTPSession hard coded "states", > including the "mode" could be moved to the state hashmap? > (e.g: BlockListed, RelayingAllowed, AuthRequired, User) You are right! Lot of clean up needed. I did not add to state hashmap. because the comment said it should store only MAIL-RCPT-DATA in compliance with the RFC implementation guideline > > One more thing: > Can we use the interface LogEnabled for the handlers and pass the logger to > the handlers as like as you currently do for the Configuration? > This allow us to remove the getLogger() from the SMTPSession. (IMHO > SMTPSession should be as simple as possible) > makes sense, will do the change. I too want to make SMTPSession as possible. Currently I have various interfaces for making refactoring easy. they will be removed. I dont like the getWatchDog() and various other interfaces in SMTPSession. any suggestions? > BTW, Good work! thank you. --Anagha > Stefano > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
