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 ;-(
Great, we are totally on the same track then!
--Søren
--
Søren Hilmer, M.Sc.
R&D manager Phone: +45 72 30 64 00
T
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
Hi Danny,
>
> My own idea config would look like:
>
>
>
>
>
> MAIL
>
>
> FROM
>
>
>
> 5xx
> foo-barred
>
>
>
> 220
> OK
>
>
>
>
>
I like your proposal for fastfail, very mu
> 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 respon
> 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 handli
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 ca
> your configuration example:
>
>
>
>
> [...]
> 220
>
>
> [..]
>
> 5xx
>
>
> 220
>
> [..]
I just added ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES support to james smtp server. So you should
take care to add a DSN status to every smtp reply and not only
Alexander,
your configuration example:
MAIL FROM
accept
220
...
Looks just fine, very close to what I imagined.
What I can't understand is how you could use "Matchers" before you have a
complete "Mail".
My own idea config would look
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 r
Alexander Botov wrote:
> thanks for the update. It really clarifies the fast-fail mechanism for me.
> I have couple of questions (regarding fast-fail):
> - Which branch from the svn should I checkout?
We've recently moved into subversion and completed a version merger so that
trunk/ is the curre
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 th
> 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
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 de
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 for
OK, there are many enthusiastic people out there willing to contribute to
James project, so I'm wondering if there is need for more, but still...
My name is Alexander Botov and I'm undergraduate student studying computer
science in Technical University of Sofia, Bulgaria. I've been using James in
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
handl
> 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 un
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
approri
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 t
19 matches
Mail list logo
