Hello, On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Eric Charles <[email protected]> wrote: > I hope to be able to finish MPT-4 in a the coming week.
Cool. > mailbox-integration-tester is orphan for now (No web site, no release...) > which is tricky since a lot time. > > I wonder if mpt would be a good home for this orphan. > mailbox-integration-tester is just a pratical usecase/application of the > generic mpt library, so we could have a module in mpt like 'impl' and the > first child on 'impl' would be the mailbox-integration-tester, which btw > would be renamed 'james-imap' (it is about testing james imap with mpt). You have my full support for this. It's exactly what I am suggesting. Let's move 'mailbox-integration-tester' folder under MPT tree. I don't have a name preference but 'james-imap' is a bit of a name clash with the James protocol artifact. I would add some 'test'/ 'tester'/ 'mpt' in there to make things clear. Please raise an issue when you are ready. I have some free time next week so I can fix it, just let me know. > Maybe you don't like it? Maybe you have a better idea? Just tell. > > Thx, Eric > I would go even further and merge MPT and Postage and change the goal of the new project (the components can keep their name) to be 'email testing tools'. Postage can test load and supports POP3 and SMTP, MPT tests protocol functionality and supports IMAP. From what I've read on the web pages they can both be used with other mail servers, not just James. The fact that they share similar goals and the overhead of developing them as separate projects are my arguments for merging them. I understand if you don't fully agree with me. -- Ioan Eugen Stan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
