Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> On 8/16/07, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 8/16/07, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Stefano Bagnara schrieb:
>>> I fully agree with Stefano,
>> !!
>>
>> What is your point? That the API should enforce RFC compliance and not
>> the serve
Hi Robert,
On 8/16/07, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 8/16/07, Paulo Sergio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
>
> hi paulo
>
> > are there any plans to implement the Imap Idle command?
>
> no immediate ones ;-)
>
> > i will need it to a project that i'm developing, so
On 8/16/07, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/16/07, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Stefano Bagnara schrieb:
>
> > I fully agree with Stefano,
>
> !!
>
> What is your point? That the API should enforce RFC compliance and not
> the server?
> Why? The servlet API doesn't enf
On 8/16/07, Paulo Sergio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
hi paulo
> are there any plans to implement the Imap Idle command?
no immediate ones ;-)
> i will need it to a project that i'm developing, so if there are no plans to
> develop it,
> i will work on it myself.
glad to have a volunte
Hi all,
are there any plans to implement the Imap Idle command?
i will need it to a project that i'm developing, so if there are no plans to
develop it,
i will work on it myself. but i might need some help.
what would be the right approach to do it?
i probably should add imap idle to the command l
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> i've revised the MailAdapter API so that the responsibility for
> parsing the addresses is push to the adapter. however, Envelope
> extends Address.
>
> i wondered whether this the API needs altering so that getEnvelopes
> returns addresses but i'm struggling to
i've revised the MailAdapter API so that the responsibility for
parsing the addresses is push to the adapter. however, Envelope
extends Address.
i wondered whether this the API needs altering so that getEnvelopes
returns addresses but i'm struggling to understand the envelope test
in http://www.rf
On 8/15/07, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 conc
Danny Angus ha scritto:
> On 8/16/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> IMHO it is not true that we can leave the checks to the container:
>> sometimes Mailets do write new addresses. In this case we would have
>> mailet author to write their own implementation
>
> No.
>
>> or depe
On 8/16/07, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> server authors can choose whether to change
> their implementation to validate against more/other specifications or
> to remain strictly compliant with the original specification.
And users can choose to use a competing product.
d.
--
On 8/16/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO it is not true that we can leave the checks to the container:
> sometimes Mailets do write new addresses. In this case we would have
> mailet author to write their own implementation
No.
> or depend on some
> specific container (using
Danny Angus ha scritto:
> On 8/16/07, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Stefano Bagnara schrieb:
>
>> I fully agree with Stefano,
>
> !!
>
> What is your point? That the API should enforce RFC compliance and not
> the server?
> Why? The servlet API doesn't enforce compliance with http
12 matches
Mail list logo
