Stefano Bagnara schrieb:
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
I fully agree with Stefano,
please consider to this ;-)
bye
Norman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
