Am Sonntag, den 23.07.2006, 11:55 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman: > > I don't know if "RoamingUsers" is better or worst than "PopBeforeSmtp": > > what do ther thinks? > > There are many ways to handle RoamingUsers. POPBeforeSMTP is at least > descriptive. I called it RoaminUsersHandler cause we could easly use it for IMAPBeforeSMTP if imap is included. So i thought this "general" name is the best.
> > > 2) Before 3.0 I would like to find a better solution than hardcoding the > > check in PassCmdHandler (maybe support the new fastfail in pop3, and add > > support for filters after command execution for this). > > Well, I agree and disagree. I disagree in that these are not really filters; > they are command handlers. In some cases, the commands filter, but they are > structurally indentical. And I agree that we should rebuild the protocol > handlers in the same manner as we rebuilt SMTP (and which IMAP, conceptually, > used earlier), using pluggable command handlers. > Exactly what i want to do too :-) This will us give more flexibility. I did the commit with the hardcoded one to "show" what we can improve and why we should. I think to have a "base" on which we can discuss is better then nothing. > > 3) We start having a little mess with authorized users, relaying > > allowed, authorized networks and how handlers manage this. Let's > > keep in mind this and maybe we'll find a clean solution to this. > > I don't disagree. What if anything do you have in mind at this time? > > --- Noel > I agree.. But not in mind yet. bye Norman
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
