Hi Danny,
My own idea config would look like:
smtpHandler
!-- Sender based checks. --
commandHandler class=Mail
!-- Handle MAIL --
commandMAIL/command
!-- MAIL expects FROM --
commandHandler class=MailFrom
commandFROM/command
!-- process a rule --
Soren,
I like your proposal for fastfail, very much in line with my own
thoughts.
I only have minor comments.
Yeah I think with Noel's comments and your's we seem to be approaching a
consensus on this one.
Are you going to ApacheConEU? We could arrange to brainstorm the
implementation details.
On Thursday 09 June 2005 11:58, Danny Angus wrote:
Are you going to ApacheConEU? We could arrange to brainstorm the
implementation details.
Unfortunately not ;-(
snipped discussion on fastfail
Great, we are totally on the same track then!
--Søren
--
Søren Hilmer, M.Sc.
RD manager
550 5.7.1 User unknown
Yeah OK.
I think (as I said in past) that allowing full smtp reply code control at
this level will be an error.
I don't think it is up to us to dictate how James users chose their
installations to behave.
OTOH I don't think we need to mandate configuration of
Noel wrote:
Although the scope of validation covers that neccessary to determine
that
we will accept the responsibility for delivery, which can lead to some
other
things. For example, I would probably configure virtual user mapping
within
the protocol handler, which would allow me to reject
Alexander,
your configuration example:
smtp-processor
!-- Sender based checks. --
matcher class=SenderCheck
command MAIL FROM /command
action accept /action
code 220 /code
description ... /description
/matcher
/smtp-processor
Looks just fine,
Stefano,
I wouldn't like the SMTP server to read the code that an handler returns
and decide how to behave dependently on the first char of that code.
I agree with that concern, which isn't generally exposed in the my version
of the fast-fail proposal. In the case where I show a general case,
By the way, did I miss a patch where you changed the bounce
mailet? I'm seeing the DSNStatus inner class still there, as
well as the new copy of it that is in mail/dsn/DSNStatus.
--- Noel
My DSNBounce is totally different from the one in trunk. Actually I named my
bounce handling
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 16:10:49 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote
Alexander (and others interested in Fast-Fail),
Danny has some information on http://wiki.apache.org/james/FastFail
for his proposal. That is one of several that have come up over the
past couple of years. I just posted mine there,
Alexander (and others interested in Fast-Fail),
Danny has some information on http://wiki.apache.org/james/FastFail for his
proposal. That is one of several that have come up over the past couple of
years. I just posted mine there, too.
Danny and I are largely in agreement on on having some
Danny Angus wrote:
In my opinion (There may be some disagreement about where we're going
with this!) Fast Fail is about extending the SMTP protocol to include
validations
+1
Although the scope of validation covers that neccessary to determine that
we will accept the responsibility for
I would probably configure virtual user mapping within the
protocol handler, which would allow me to reject unknown
users in-protocol instead of via bounce notices. But this
should be a configurable choice, ideally using the same code.
If you run VirtuserTable in the protocol handler
I suggest you subscribe to server-dev@james.apache.org
and get involved in the discussions there.
I don't know anything about the clustering proposal.
I think the google summer of code is intended to be a three month
engagement and I suspect that three months full-time is more than
plenty time to
I dont know the intention of james clustering proposal but I have been
reading james source code for 2 days and trying to
find places that clustering can be applied.
As far as I know, each Handler of any kind represents socket connection
with other party. Handler receives data, and forms
Could any developers verify my observations and give some
comments ? I am really interested in implementing clustering
feature for James.
I would look here, too: http://sourceforge.net/projects/james-ha/
Stefano
-
To
HI,
Handler receives data, and forms
approriate commands and call doXXX to handle these commands. One
possible clustering approach here is to distribute these
commands to different processes (in different JVM as well).
We currently assign each socket conenction to a handler and each
handler
16 matches
Mail list logo
