On 04/06/2020 13:19, David Leangen (Apache) wrote: > Thank you Benoit. >> Here is the link: http://james.apache.org/server/install.html (SMTP) > > Ok nice, thanks!! >> We may not want to advertise POP much given that its integration test >> coverage is low. > > Then how about deprecating POP? Or completely eliminating it?> > Just a thought, but if the usage is low and it is not “reliable” due to > limited test coverage, then why keep it around at all? There's some usage of it, the code don't hurt much so far, and seems to be working reasonably well.
To take the example of Linagora, some of our customers have POP on their features check-boxes. > In any case, I could remove all the sections about POP if necessary… IMO we just need to be honest with the status of POP in James and explain that contributions can be welcome on that topic. >> It makes perfect sense for JMAP however James current implementation >> relies on an outdated draft version, that we are currently upgrading to >> RFC-8621, thus I would consider it early to demonstrate it. > > Ok, fair enough. > > Cheers, > =David > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
