On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Norman Maurer
wrote:
> Sounds good,
>
> so what about some code to show your "general" idea ?
my project has kicked off so i don't have a lot of cycles ATM but i'll
do my best...
- robert
-
To
Sounds good,
so what about some code to show your "general" idea ?
Bye,
Norman
2010/2/12 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Norman Maurer
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
>>
>>> maybe:
>>>
>>> deliver(String URL, Mail mail)
>>>
>>> would be a reasonab
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Norman Maurer
wrote:
>
>
> 2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
>
>> maybe:
>>
>> deliver(String URL, Mail mail)
>>
>> would be a reasonable first step. (i agree that we need to revise Mail
>> but i think that can wait.)
>>
>> URL gives more flexibility for virtual s
2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> maybe:
>
> deliver(String URL, Mail mail)
>
> would be a reasonable first step. (i agree that we need to revise Mail
> but i think that can wait.)
>
> URL gives more flexibility for virtual stuff and namespacing. for both
> IMAP and POP3 the storage of the re
Ok some things we should really try todo (many thigns already said by Stefano):
1) I like the idea of only moving the "envelope" stuff around. Most
time we have no need to "copy,move" the whole message
2) Share the same "stored" message for all recipients (maybe store the
only the diff if the mess
To keep this alive..
I really like the idea of having some kind of "easy" interface.
Something like Stefano and Robert suggest. Any of you have some kind
of "component graph" to layout the idea ?
Bye,
Norman
2010/1/25 Norman Maurer :
> Urgh... ok good luck then!
>
> Bye,
> Norman
>
>
> 2010/1/2
Urgh... ok good luck then!
Bye,
Norman
2010/1/25 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Norman Maurer
> wrote:
>> Ok..
>>
>> I just asked because it would be really helpful to have your help here
>> before you need to concentrate on your study again ;)
>
> something unexpec
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Norman Maurer
wrote:
> Ok..
>
> I just asked because it would be really helpful to have your help here
> before you need to concentrate on your study again ;)
something unexpected cropped up at the end of last week as soon as i'd
finished my exam (don't ask) :-/
Ok..
I just asked because it would be really helpful to have your help here
before you need to concentrate on your study again ;)
Bye,
Norman
2010/1/25 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Norman Maurer
> wrote:
>> So any takers on this ?
>>
>> Robert ?
>
> some stuff's tu
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Norman Maurer
wrote:
> So any takers on this ?
>
> Robert ?
some stuff's turned up which i need to sort out (i'm doing the NNTP
stuff since no concentration's needed). i'd like to at least document
the design but it depends on how things work out. if it can wait a
So any takers on this ?
Robert ?
Bye,
Norman
2010/1/22 Norman Maurer :
> configurable is fine...
>
> Bye,
> Norman
>
>
> 2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Norman Maurer
>> wrote:
>>> 2010/1/22 Stefano Bagnara :
2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
>>>
>>>
configurable is fine...
Bye,
Norman
2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Norman Maurer
> wrote:
>> 2010/1/22 Stefano Bagnara :
>>> 2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
>>
>>
IMAP sets flags based on SMTP. JavaMail sets flags based on SMTP but
not com
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Norman Maurer
wrote:
> 2010/1/22 Stefano Bagnara :
>> 2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
>
>
>>>
>>> IMAP sets flags based on SMTP. JavaMail sets flags based on SMTP but
>>> not compatibly. IMAP-vs-POP3 eg POP3 delete has different semantics
>>> from IMAP's delete
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> 2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>> 2010/1/21 Robert Burrell Donkin :
i think that using sieve to deliver IMAP mail is wrong. i think that
the script should set attribu
2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> So this "deliver" method is something you would add also to the
>> MailetContext, or something different?
>
> dunno
>
> i'd be inclined just to use spring or guice to assemble it into the
> mailets and l
2010/1/22 Stefano Bagnara :
> 2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
>>
>> IMAP sets flags based on SMTP. JavaMail sets flags based on SMTP but
>> not compatibly. IMAP-vs-POP3 eg POP3 delete has different semantics
>> from IMAP's delete so separate flags are needed. (i suspect that most
>> users would
2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> 2010/1/21 Robert Burrell Donkin :
>>> i think that using sieve to deliver IMAP mail is wrong. i think that
>>> the script should set attributes on the mail (for example, set a
>>> attribute for folder) a
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> 2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
>> transforming via standard JavaMail (rather than Stefano's amazing
>> workaround) alters the email so that SMTP->IMAP delivery is no longer
>> specification compliant. i suspect the same goes for POP3.
>
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Norman Maurer
wrote:
> 2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
4. there are subtle semantic differences between the meanings of flags
in POP3, SMTP and IMAP
>>>
>>> SMTP Flags ? You lost me here..
>>
>> IMAP sets flags based on SMTP. JavaMail sets flags
2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> transforming via standard JavaMail (rather than Stefano's amazing
> workaround) alters the email so that SMTP->IMAP delivery is no longer
> specification compliant. i suspect the same goes for POP3.
I'd like to add that in the last Javamail versions (1.4.2, 1.4.
2010/1/22 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Norman Maurer
> wrote:
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> comments inside..
>
> true :-)
>
>> 2010/1/21 Robert Burrell Donkin :
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Norman Maurer wrote:
>
>
>
>>> here's the issues which spring to mind:
>>>
>>
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> 2010/1/21 Robert Burrell Donkin :
>> i think that using sieve to deliver IMAP mail is wrong. i think that
>> the script should set attributes on the mail (for example, set a
>> attribute for folder) and with independent delivery.
>
> 5 year
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Norman Maurer
wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> comments inside..
true :-)
> 2010/1/21 Robert Burrell Donkin :
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Norman Maurer wrote:
>> here's the issues which spring to mind:
>>
>> 1. the POP3 protocol stuff is sound enough but MailR
2010/1/21 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> i think that using sieve to deliver IMAP mail is wrong. i think that
> the script should set attributes on the mail (for example, set a
> attribute for folder) and with independent delivery.
5 years ago I was proposing
(http://markmail.org/message/xkcttgyqmfwpie
Hi Robert,
comments inside..
2010/1/21 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Norman Maurer wrote:
>> Sure, I would be very interested in discuss stuff.
>
> cool
>
>> I was just looking for a quick solution which give users who use James
>> 2.3 not to much headach.
>
> i thi
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Norman Maurer wrote:
> Sure, I would be very interested in discuss stuff.
cool
> I was just looking for a quick solution which give users who use James
> 2.3 not to much headach.
i think that should be possible
i think that using sieve to deliver IMAP mail is w
:
> On Wednesday, January 20, 2010, Norman Maurer wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> after I already brought this up some time in the past I thought a bit
>> more about MailRepository and MailboxManager. I'm still in favor to
>> just use one Repository for IMAP and POP3. I
On Wednesday, January 20, 2010, Norman Maurer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> after I already brought this up some time in the past I thought a bit
> more about MailRepository and MailboxManager. I'm still in favor to
> just use one Repository for IMAP and POP3. I think its a no go
oteManager and "movemails", but I
> >> believe having a single Repository would be still better :)
> >>
> >> Kind regards,
> >> Mario
> >>
> >> >-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> >> >Von: norman.mau...@googlemail.com [mailt
er! OK, we may use RemoteManager and "movemails", but I
>> believe having a single Repository would be still better :)
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Mario
>>
>> >-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> >Von: norman.mau...@googlemail.com [mai
e having a single Repository would be still better :)
>
> Kind regards,
> Mario
>
> >-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> >Von: norman.mau...@googlemail.com [mailto:norman.mau...@googlemail.com]
> >Im Auftrag von Norman Maurer
> >Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 12:
be still better :)
>
> Kind regards,
> Mario
>
>>-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>>Von: norman.mau...@googlemail.com [mailto:norman.mau...@googlemail.com]
>>Im Auftrag von Norman Maurer
>>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 12:38
>>An: James Developers L
ndet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 12:38
>An: James Developers List
>Betreff: MailRepository and MailboxManager
>
>Hi all,
>
>after I already brought this up some time in the past I thought a bit
>more about MailRepository and MailboxManager. I'm still in favor to
>just
Hi all,
after I already brought this up some time in the past I thought a bit
more about MailRepository and MailboxManager. I'm still in favor to
just use one Repository for IMAP and POP3. I think its a no go to ship
different "storages" for the protocols. I know the requirement fo
34 matches
Mail list logo
