On 05/10/06, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
does anyone see the need for a more formal vote about the patch and/or the policy? if yes, please speak up now.
No. The policy is a pragmatic one, the idea that the documentation be hidden is flawed, it highlights neither the feature nor the issue. IMHO It should be highly visible, and contain a simple disclaimer. perhaps such as... "Certain features allow Apache James to handle mail which has been constructed or sent by a broken piece of software. This feature permits James to handle messages which do not comply with RFC XXXX para Y.Y This feature has been disabled by default because James developers intend that James itself complies with the relevant published standards in the form in which it is distributed. The James project's policy is to encourage the developers of other email software to comply with published standards. It is only by all parties conforming to published standards that interoperability can be guaranteed, this is a fundamental feature of the internet. You are free to enable this feature which has been developed for your benefit as carefully as any of James' other features." d. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
