RE: Bah, my idea by the people who I said needed it

2003-12-11 Thread Noel J. Bergman
Mark Swanson wrote: > What immediately comes to mind is a black hole service that > would block based on digital certificates. What do you need it for? My understanding is that it would be something like: - Receive message - Extract signature - DNS.lookup(sender.domain,"MXKEY"); - Verify

Re: Bah, my idea by the people who I said needed it

2003-12-11 Thread bill parducci
actually, what immediately comes to mind for me is non-repudiation of e-mail messages (finally! ;o) b Mark Swanson wrote: On December 11, 2003 6:34 pm, bill parducci wrote: if it takes off, it should make CPU salesmen around the world happy! :o) I was curious so I fired up the ol' `openssl sp

Re: Bah, my idea by the people who I said needed it

2003-12-11 Thread Mark Swanson
On December 11, 2003 6:34 pm, bill parducci wrote: > if it takes off, it should make CPU salesmen around the world happy! :o) I was curious so I fired up the ol' `openssl speed` test on my Athlon 2400 and found: signverifysign/s verify/s rsa 512 bits 0.0015s 0.0002s

Re: Is James appropriate as a development testbed for a proxy service?

2003-12-11 Thread bill parducci
Alain Ravet wrote: > Are you using it for acceptance tests, or did you use for unit tests, > while developing? > > Could you give a few numbers (rough estimates) : number of tests, time > taken, setup time, .. > Did you consider, at some point, using/writing mock servers to speed > up some tests.

Re: Bah, my idea by the people who I said needed it

2003-12-11 Thread bill parducci
if it takes off, it should make CPU salesmen around the world happy! :o) b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've always thought server-driven domain-based authentication was one of the most needed additions to SMTP/email. Does anyone know how we can learn more about this approach and make James compati

Re: Bah, my idea by the people who I said needed it

2003-12-11 Thread Serge Knystautas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've always thought server-driven domain-based authentication was one of the most needed additions to SMTP/email. Does anyone know how we can learn more about this approach and make James compatible (and not just sendmail and qmail)? http://www.informationweek.com/story/s

RE: IMAP and Unix Mailboxes

2003-12-11 Thread Brian Cavagnolo
This sounds good. Is there a binary drop of this version? If not, do I have to get the source from CVS? Is there a site describing how to check out the various development and test versions? Thanks, Brian --- Jason Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The current test release of James 2.2.0a (I

Bah, my idea by the people who I said needed it

2003-12-11 Thread sergek
I've always thought server-driven domain-based authentication was one of the most needed additions to SMTP/email. Does anyone know how we can learn more about this approach and make James compatible (and not just sendmail and qmail)? http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articl

Re: Is James appropriate as a development testbed for a proxy service?

2003-12-11 Thread Alain Ravet
Bill , Just to be sure : we have been using james for that for over a year now (generic platform for proxying e-mail for analysis). it has worked quite well. on the other hand 'fast' and 'small' are kinda relative ;o) Are you using it for acceptance tests, or did you use for unit tests, while

RE: IMAP and Unix Mailboxes

2003-12-11 Thread Jason Webb
The current test release of James 2.2.0a (I think) can write to mbox style user spools directly. However it doesn't do Maildir (it will eventually I hope) -- Jason > -Original Message- > From: Brian Cavagnolo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 10 December 2003 18:19 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED