> Thoughts? Has anyone other than Danny had time to look at the reverse path > handling changes? Vincenzo, you need for me to commit these bounce castle
I also read it carefully and it seems to be correct (but I didn't noticed that subtle bug you mentioned). However the hardest part is to justify that there are no other places which contains incorrect dependency on the Return-Path. It must be tested well before releasing the final. One other place comes into my mind, the pop3 downloader(?), which may be affected, but I don't know that module at all and accidentally that is likely the only place where it is legal to read the Return-Path header. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James-Dev Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 2:54 AM Subject: JAMES 2.2.1 Release Candidate? > Guys, > > I would like to put out a JAMES 2.2.1 Release Candidate so that we can all > look at it and decide that it looks good to release. I would like to > include the patch I posted earlier this week as well as the changes already > committed by Vincenzo and Steve. FWIW, a side-effect of the reverse path > handling change may be significantly reduced memory footprint, although > there is room for even more improvement. > > Thoughts? Has anyone other than Danny had time to look at the reverse path > handling changes? Vincenzo, you need for me to commit these bounce castle > jars that I've got in the JAMES 2.1.1 test builds, right? Anything else > anyone can think of? > > I'm posting a test build to the usual place. > > --- Noel > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
