Am Mittwoch, den 19.04.2006, 20:50 +0100 schrieb Steve Brewin: > Norman Maurer wrote: > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 19.04.2006, 12:42 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman: > > > > i think : org.apache.james.util.mail.spf > > > > > > I think org.apache.spf for the main code, and > > org.apache.james.util.mail.spf > > > for any code linking JAMES to the main code. After all, > > the SPF library is > > > generic, right? It would be something that other Java > > projects could use. > > I agree, and with what Noel said in a later posting. Hence my... > > < I believe that the only reason for a side project is > < something that works > < independently of James. > > ...which it apparently will. > > > right its indepent. Is it maybe possible that i maybe get > > commit rights > > for this subproject it whould make thinks easier for me to make it to > > work like it should etc. > > We could use the way JSieve is set up as a model. It has its own SVN subtree > within James and its own Jira project. > > I think that spawning subprojects in this way is a good thing. It allows us > to offer more back to the community while also making us think about how we > structure our code assets into James specifics and a kind of mail commons > somewhat akin to jakarta commons - > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/index.html. Hmmm. Now there's an idea!
After a bit more testing etc it seems that the currend SPF code not work with all SPFRecords. I run a few tests with: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/tests/ . Maybe we should rework the whole think.. It also seems a bit confusing to me how the classes are structured. What about you guys ? what you think ?
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
