Ahmed Mohombe wrote:
If it would be good for ASF mail delivery - I would not like to put
that on a test. ASF is sending quite a lot of mails!
IMHO it would be the duty of the "JAMES team" to lobby this trial to the
other ASF members
to make a first try and get feedback what's required to be able to 100%
run the entire ASF emails on JAMES.
One basic requirement is to handle tens of thousands of mails each day
very reliably.
=> We are only starting to make this testable (James Postage project).
Another requirement is to very flexibly handle management.
=> We are working on management features.
As long as we have not enough people working on these things, we are not
fullfilling these requirements.
Everyone is welcome to help and improve.
It would be the ultimate argument for every manager for adopting JAMES.
> In the last 4 years, I was always had to hear: "if it's not even good
> for their own use, why should
> it be good enough for us?" :).
Would be a strong argument, but probably not the ultimate one. When
chosing a product, check your own requirements, not the requirements of
others!
Even if the ASF infrastructure team is coming to the conclusing that
James is an option, I would not neccessarily suggest to change a running
system. Mail infra is very critical to the ASF!
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
