> I need to create my own mail repository for James.
Why?
> where to find the mechanism that James uses to find the
> correct user store
See the element.
> and the corresponding mail store
See the element.
--- Noel
---
> SMTPACL is attempting to expand the use of mailets, which are already
> heavily tied to SMTP processing, to a faster-fail environment.
Agreed.
> > I would permit something like:
> >
> >
> >
> This implies there are more protocols and events than we actually have.
No, just more events, e
Hi all,
I need to create my own mail repository for James. I would appreciate
some hints about where to find the mechanism that James uses to find the
correct user store and the corresponding mail store in case more than
one are configured. Or it searches all of them?
Or my question is nonsense?
Ch
Message:
A new issue has been created in JIRA.
-
View the issue:
http://nagoya.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=JSIEVE-3
Here is an overview of the issue:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I agree with some of your comments, I disagree with some others. In
general, I would rather not artificially restrict the approach to implement
a usage policy. And we have other services, e.g., NNTP, where this could be
useful.
It is incorrect to say we have other services.
Serge Knystautas wrote:
> This just came across the Sieve extensions mailing list and
> thought it's
> relevant to Was: SMTPACL.
One of the goals in my mind for the James implementation of Sieve is to be
able to leverage all of the existing good stuff in implemented Mailets and
Matchers by enabli
I agree with some of your comments, I disagree with some others. In
general, I would rather not artificially restrict the approach to implement
a usage policy. And we have other services, e.g., NNTP, where this could be
useful.
I would permit something like:
so that one might be allowed
This just came across the Sieve extensions mailing list and thought it's
relevant to Was: SMTPACL.
--
Serge Knystautas
President
Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com
p. 301.656.5501
e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Begin Message ---
Hello, folks. Please review and provid
Ok, I've already got corrections. Need to wait 15 minutes before
sending these...
Serge Knystautas wrote:
I got the proposal for SMTPACL and generally think it's very sound. I
like the idea of using the mailet API, with certain restrictions.
There are two things I would suggest changing:
1. T
I got the proposal for SMTPACL and generally think it's very sound. I
like the idea of using the mailet API, with certain restrictions.
There are two things I would suggest changing:
1. The name. ACL doesn't make sense as this isn't a list of anything.
This is specific to SMTP, and in fact I m
> > I'm using in production since a long time also a virus-
> > check matcher: IsInfected.
>
> What are its dependencies?
No dependencies: it spawns whatever command-line anti-virus product is available in
the server. I use it with McAfee, but I understand from some messages in the lists
that th
> > > S/MIME code?
> > This mailet (server side signing) is properly working, and just
> > needs to be javadoc enhanced and some ho-to documentation.
>
> :-)
>
> > Outlook Express [considers] as a tampering the fact of having
> > the signature not coming from the sender
>
> Microsoft is likely g
Ahh, that makes sense then, ofcourse you could change the From header.
Now, a client replying to the mail will probably do it to the trusted-server
(unless you modify the reply-to header) but that is really often what you
want, because otherwise the client cannot find the right certificate and t
>
> > >
> > > Vincenzo: S/MIME code?
> >
> > This mailet (server side signing) is properly working, and just needs to be
> > javadoc enhanced and some ho-to documentation. But as I found a problem
> > with Outlook Express
>
> > because it considers as a tampering the fact of
> > havin
> >
> > Vincenzo: S/MIME code?
>
> This mailet (server side signing) is properly working, and just needs to be
> javadoc enhanced and some ho-to documentation. But as I found a problem
> with Outlook Express
> because it considers as a tampering the fact of
> having the signature not c
15 matches
Mail list logo
