Danny Angus ha scritto: > Sorry to cross post, pls reply to server-dev Why do you bounce back to server-dev? Isn't this a mailet api issue, first? IMHO similar issues should be discussed also with other implementors (e.g: MailCatcher author) and other interested parties (A. Oliver @ Buni). I thought we created a mailet api project mainly to separate this decisions from Apache specific implementation.
> 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 would like to know exactly what kind of invalid email address we think should be represented and what scenario does this cover. In the mean time, generally speaking, I don't think this is a good idea. We produce an API based on a given specification, IMHO we should follow that specification and make very clear when we give tools to break the specification. To mailet users this would be a major changes: previously any time I reveived a MailAddress in a method I knew it was a syntatically valid address. With the proposed change I won't know this anymore. Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
