Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > That requires a bit of thought, rather than rushing into coding
> I have lost the count of discussions with no end, with no conclusions
> I'm sure I can find discussions about virtual users at least 3 years old
Actually, the virtual user code is just about what it ought to be, although
what I proposed earlier would be a useful change. A few discussions that
haven't been implemented are largely because some people just don't
understand how SMTP and POP3 work. For example, the POP3 RFC says:
USER name
Arguments:
a string identifying a mailbox (required), which is of
significance ONLY to the server
It need *NOT* be the user's e-mail address. We could look at expanding the
range of possible mailbox identifiers, but there is no need.
This is not the problem with JAMES-426. The issue with JAMES-426 is that it
neither takes into account that we can have non-JDBC virtual tables, nor the
fact that we can have multiple virtual user tables. If implemented, it
would, at best, be a temporary solution for a sub-set of users.
Exposing a virtual user mapping service, and then querying that service,
would resolve both issues.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
