On 8/15/07, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry to cross post, pls reply to server-dev > > > I think that I agree with roberts issue regarding MailAddress (MAILET-9) > I would like to propose that the API specify an interface and possibly > an InternetAddress wrapper if we produce an RI. but that in general > the container should be concerned with RFC compliance decisions not > the API and therfore the existing MailAddress should move back to > james-server. > > WDYT?
i agree in principle i do wonder whether there may turn out to be a number of useful classes related to mailets which are not strictly part of the API but which implementors would benefit from having access to. a toolkit for the API, perhaps? - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
