On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > > > IMHO it would be better not to ship the crypto-mailets with 3.0 > > releases but to allow users to download the jar if they want to use > > the crypto stuff. > > > > Why? we'll need the crypto/export stuff for james server anyway because of > the SSL support in the protocols, don't we?
ATM only the SMIME mailets are included in the notification IIRC java does not contain strong crypt out-of-the-box so i'm not sure whether a notification is needed > > > > 4. i would like to merge in the work from the cryptography branch. i > > > > think that it might be best to tidy up trunk first then create a 1.0 > > > > branch then merge in changes from the branch. > > > > > > > > > > > What is the "cryptography branch" ? > > > > > > > the development area for Vincenzo and myself to work on OpenPGP, there > > has been some interest lately in completing this implementation. it > > should be *much* easier to work on this now that crypto-mailets is a > > separate project. > > > > james/server/sandbox/rfc3156 ! > > Sorry, I totally forgot about it, and the "crypted" name didn't help > refreshing my memory when I rarely looked at our sandboxes ;-) > > +1 for merging that code > (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=494577) to mailet-crypto. the OpenPGP/MIME stuff is incomplete but the S/MIME works. i had been thinking about cutting an S/MIME release then merging OpenPGP/MIME in. this would allow the versions in the 2.3.x codestream to be deleted. > PS: Should we keep the org.apache.james.security.openpgp package or is it > better to replace "james" with "mailet" ? not sure: this is a wider area for discussion ATM most of the mailets are packaged under org.apache.james. repacking them would be logical but would break compatibility. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
