I just notice that i not answer to this post. So better late then never: Am Dienstag, den 05.09.2006, 18:34 +0200 schrieb Stefano Bagnara: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > Also, to speak directly to your concern, please consider that we already > > have JDBC and XML based VUT implementations. Doesn't it seem reasonable to > > unify the mapping code by writing a VUT that is populated from user > > repositories? For one thing, as I noted, the account-based alias/forwarding > > code happens only during local delivery, whereas virtual user table behavior > > can happen anywhere in the pipeline, from in-protocol to delivery. > > I already splitted LocalDelivery into UsersRepositoryAliasingForwarding > and ToMultiRepository. The first one is the one that is needed to > support the aliasing/forwarding. We may remove LocalDelivery from our > config.xml and insert the 2 mailets as separate instances so that it > will be much more clear what happens and when.
+1 Im not sure if we should do this in 2.3 or in later versions. IF we want todo it not now we should mark LocalDelivery as @deprecated before release 2.3 final. > > This may mean that also UsersRepositoryAliasingForwarding is movable > around like the VUTs and that we could write a fastfail for it like for > VUTs. I don't understand this. Can you explain ? > > I always thought that all of this stuff should be accessed via a common > interface so we may create services and have generic > mailets/matchers/fastfailfilters to access them. > > Stefano IF we could manage this this whould be great. bye Norman
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
