RE: SMTPHandler

[Daniel Sadolevsky]

Title: RE: SMTPHandler

Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Second IMHO pluggable commands do not provide any real avantages but
> makes only more complex changes and debugging. Since the protocol is
> well defined I far prefere a simple hardcoded class implementing all
> commands than spagetti coding.
> If we'll decide to implements some ESMTP commands we'll write an
> ESMPTHandler supporting specific commands. If I need to extend support
> to a new command it's far more easy modify update the class
> than adding
> a new command.
>
> That's way I'm planning to roll back to the old SMTP handler, fix and
> update it if necessary and add the LocalInbox feature. I've
> worked a bit
> on the Store interface and IMO it's ready to support local users and
> inbox for local delivery throught POP3.
>
> If everybody agree I'll do the job.
Not that my opinion matters, but you read my mind :-)