Hi Stefano,
I was thinking a bit, and came to a proposal. What about you have a RFC
compliant *AnythingThatIsNotCompliantWillBeDropped* Handler. And another
Handler, which allows common Bendings of the RFC.
IMHO if other RFC compliant Mailservers (i.e. postfix, qmail) allow
this, James should allow this.
I am thinking about the same way HTML is able to distinct between
transitional and strict.
Could this be a way to go? That way the behaviour is still configurable,
as the user desires. Correct?
Kind regards
Juergen Hoffmann
Stefano Bagnara schrieb:
Jürgen Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
Noel J. Bergman schrieb:
<handler command="MAIL,RCPT"
class="org.apache.james.smtpserver.FixMissingBrackets"/>
or just
<handler class="org.apache.james.smtpserver.FixMissingBrackets"/>
This approach sounds like a great solution to a common problem, and
could be used for other rfc violations as well.
Kind regards
Juergen Hoffmann
We should pay attention to this kind of configurability/flexibility.
The risk is to end up with a config.xml that is more difficult to manage
than a java file both for users (without java knowledge) and for
developers (with java knowledge).
Often an "if (optionEnabled)" is much more clean for everyone than a so
flexible system.
That said I'm still not convinced that this is an RFC violation (we are
writing a server, not a client) and I would prefer a flag for the main
handler. Either way I could live even with an additional handler but we
should include it the way the current fastfail allow us now, and maybe
refactor it to a custom handler later when the handlerchain architecture
will let us to do so.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
!EXCUBATOR:1,4522291b53071281555411!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
