Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Don't ask me how, but you just reminded me to comment in james-config.xml
that the element in SMTP is likely to be replaced
if/when we have the enhanced SMTPACL changes in place.
Serge wrote that he agreed with the list. I am hoping that Serge read the
SMTPACL submission.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I am in the process of correcting the Mailet API to use 1999-2004
based upon the presence of internal dates within the files. More
importantly, things such as FetchMail should be changed [so] that
the copyright date is not EARLIER than the code.
I saw those discussions, and
Philipp Salzgeber wrote:
> I had a look at the ToRepository mailet of 2.2.05a15, because I need
> similar functionality (storing messages in a specific folder) and
> noticed it uses deprecated code... (ComponentManager,
> ComponentException).
This is one of the reasons why there is not yet a relea
hi,
I had a look at the ToRepository mailet of 2.2.05a15, because I need
similar functionality (storing messages in a specific folder) and
noticed it uses deprecated code... (ComponentManager,
ComponentException).
This is not what I would have expected. In CVS there is no
ComponentManager any mor
Diego Castillo wrote:
Hi all,
Most of the links to the PGP signatures of the James' packages are
broken.
I didn't even realize we had any. :) Can you point to some URLs with
the broken links?
Noel, do you know of anyone else in ASF using some automated link
checking utility? I gotta think the
sbrewin 2004/02/11 09:17:07
Modified:src/java/org/apache/james/fetchmail Tag: branch_2_1_fcs
Account.java FetchMail.java
ParsedConfiguration.java FolderProcessor.java
MessageProcessor.java ProcessorAbstract.java
Hi all,
Most of the links to the PGP signatures of the James' packages are
broken.
Regards,
Diego
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>not in HEAD. Are
>they going to be moved there during the merge?
We're moving the 2xx branch to the HEAD and including all the good stuff
from the HEAD, but abandoning the experiments and failures in the HEAD to
wither and die on a branch. So to speak.
d.
**
Speaking as "operations department", I use in production since a long time the
2.2.0axx releases, and confirm Soren's points: being able to use it, I would never go
back to 2.1, even considering stability. I consider it a "productive version" that
simply has not been named that way because there
hi,
okey-dokey I start with 2.2.0a15, I hope I can sell it to our operations department...
thanks
phil
> -Original Message-
> From: Soren Hilmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Februar 2004 09:55
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: Re: 2.1.3 or 2.2.0a15???
>
>
> Hi
Just as a reminder help, see
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listId=20&msgNo=9673 and
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=9728.
Vincenzo
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: mercoledi 11 febbraio 2004 6.41
> To:
Hi,
Personally I would choose 2.2.0a15.
It is not less stable than 2.1, as a lot of bug-fixes have been applied.
So in short you get the best of two worlds more stability and more features,
ain't life great.
--Søren
On Wednesday 11 February 2004 09:29, Philipp Salzgeber wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am s
Hi!
I am starting on a project where James will be used as a smtp server. I
am going to write a mailet which sends all incoming msgs to a
SessionBean in an EJB Container.
I am wondering if I should use the productive version 2.1 or if the
advantages of the 2.2.0a15 outweigh the non-stable status
13 matches
Mail list logo
