> -Original Message-
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 06:50
> To: Stephen McConnell
> Cc: James-Dev Mailing List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Migration ... change for Thread Pool
>
> Stephen,
>
> In branch_2_1_fcs. we use
> org.apache.ja
Stephen,
In branch_2_1_fcs. we use org.apache.james.util.thread.DefaultThreadManager
because the Avalon code was badly broken. Our code is basically a fixed
version of Avalon's code.
Leif Mortenson did work on ResourceLimitingThreadManger, which should be
able to replace
org.apache.avalon.corner
> Do others have their own killer reasons right now?
I've got some killer reasons to get into some restructuring once James
is on svn. For example - breaking out James subsystems into discrete
units enabling:
* better management of unit tests
* improved separation of api and implementation
> Refactoring the bulk of James into POJOs would be a good thing.
> Just not good enough on technical merit alone. I don't see a
> 'killer' reason. Without one I cannot see why effort should be
> diverted from enhancing James up to v3 as previously envisaged.
I said that first off, but if Paul is
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Rather than port James to a new set of "Foo" interfaces,
> > why not implement Avalon's "Serviceable/Configurable/etc"
> > interfaces to your own "Foo" environment, enabling you to
> > port all apps. conforming to the Avalon interfaces?
>
> Because the goal would be cont
The auth mechanism works very well and I don't want to change anything
to it. The only thing missing is the ability to advertise that AUTH is
available _also_ to trusted hosts. The behaviour currently is that if
the host is trusted (127.0.0.1 typically) james hides it's ability to
receive auth
> What I would like is:
> a) be able to send a mail from localhost without authentication
> b) be able to send a mail from localhost (precisely from a
> spam-filtering proxy such as ASSP) _with_ authentication.
As I understood it advertising AUTH supported is equivalet to requiring
auth, are y
Let me explain :-)
I don't want to _require_ authentication. I want it to be a possibility.
What I would like is:
a) be able to send a mail from localhost without authentication
b) be able to send a mail from localhost (precisely from a
spam-filtering proxy such as ASSP) _with_ authentication.
No
Noel,
I'd rather movement towards no framework-related dependencies, using
something like the Spring Framework (http://www.springframework.org/).
Actually, I fundamentally disagree with one of Spring's mission statements.
I seriously dislike unchecked exceptions, which although easier for the
> At this point I have to chose between
> authentication working through a local proxy or allowing localhost to
> send mail.
You asked for authentication to be required for localhost, you can't ask
for it not to be required at the same time!
d.
***
Noel,
Huh? No they aren't. Quite the opposite. You had advocated that years
ago, and there was resistence to doing so. There are a few mailets with
Avalon ties, but those are being removed. Mailets will depend upon standard
services, such as JNDI, not Avalon.
I think that I suggested that M
No it wouldn't. Imagine I would like to send mail from localhost without
authentication? I just can't. At this point I have to chose between
authentication working through a local proxy or allowing localhost to
send mail.
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
But wouldn't it be totally equivalent to
But wouldn't it be totally equivalent to commenting out such option?
Vincenzo
Jacques Lema wrote:
Yes, of course I actually fixed the problem for me by commenting this
line since this exact server doesn't really need to allow localhost to
send mail. However I think it would be a nice addition to
Yes, of course I actually fixed the problem for me by commenting this
line since this exact server doesn't really need to allow localhost to
send mail. However I think it would be a nice addition to have an option
to force always showing the AUTH capability. I am not familiar with
james source
Danny Angus wrote:
The result?
The connection issued by ASSP comes from 127.0.0.1 which is an
authorized address, for obvious reasons. As a consequences james answer
to isAuthorized() is Yes, which causes it not to display the 250 auth
login message and therefore causes thunderbird not to use au
> The result?
> The connection issued by ASSP comes from 127.0.0.1 which is an
> authorized address, for obvious reasons. As a consequences james answer
> to isAuthorized() is Yes, which causes it not to display the 250 auth
> login message and therefore causes thunderbird not to use auth.
I th
Hi,
I stumbled across a problem with james (2.2.0), ASSP (antispam filter)
and Thunderbird as mail client.
The problem is that Mozilla Thunderbird does NOT use authentification is
the server does not advertise it supports it (250 - AUTH LOGIN PLAIN).
If it doesn't state that is supports AUTH t
A user view:
What I want as a solution provider is a stable ( i.e. reliable, not frozen )
platform to deliver services. I want it to evolve as both hardware and
software evolve.
I want it to be pure Java, but I don't particularly care how it is
implemented - meaning within a container / framework
> Yup I forgot the the internals of Mailet are entangled with Avalon.
> When 3.0 is mooted, and
> backward compatability for mailets is not required, someone ping me :-)
Hi Paul, Ping...
We've gone some way down the road to making the Mailet API free from the
hidden dependance on avalon.
I've
19 matches
Mail list logo
