You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by Norman Maurer <nm...@byteaction.de> on 2006/07/20 14:44:38 UTC
Experimental support for SPFHandler in 2.3
Hi guys,
i write this email cause Vincenso and Noel both aksed me if its
possible to "backport" the SPFHandler to 2.3. The problem is that in 2.3
we have no real fastfail. But if you guys want i can backport it anyway.
im +0 todo this. What the other commiters think?
Re: Experimental support for SPFHandler in 2.3
Posted by Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini <vi...@praxis.it>.
+1 from me.
Thanks,
Vincenzo (not Vincenso :-) )
Norman Maurer wrote:
>Hi guys,
>
>i write this email cause Vincenso and Noel both aksed me if its
>possible to "backport" the SPFHandler to 2.3. The problem is that in 2.3
>we have no real fastfail. But if you guys want i can backport it anyway.
>
>im +0 todo this. What the other commiters think?
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: Experimental support for SPFHandler in 2.3
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
See my Release Plans e-mail. :-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: Experimental support for SPFHandler in 2.3
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Imho we should find an agreement on what we can do in 2.3 and what we can't.
I don't have a real need for 2.3 to be out sooner or later or with or
without a specific feature, so I will be happy to use a -0/+0 with not
vetoes or hard positions about this, but what I really want to know is
what is the rule.
AFAIK Bernd casted a -1 on the backport of JAMES-515 (remove of an
unused class and an unused JAR) because, If I understood it correctly,
he thinks we should only put FIXES in 2.3 branch at this point.
Furthermore I hear Noel saying that we will release 3.0 before the end
of the year, and I think that if we start including new features in 2.3
it will be good if we release James 2.3.0 final by the end of the year.
Now I see ideas to change the launcher and to add the SPFHandler... I
think we should first decide a general rule for the current 2.3 status,
then I will be able to cast my vote.
Stefano
Norman Maurer wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> i write this email cause Vincenso and Noel both aksed me if its
> possible to "backport" the SPFHandler to 2.3. The problem is that in 2.3
> we have no real fastfail. But if you guys want i can backport it anyway.
>
> im +0 todo this. What the other commiters think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: Experimental support for SPFHandler in 2.3
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <bf...@brainlounge.de>.
Norman Maurer wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> i write this email cause Vincenso and Noel both aksed me if its
> possible to "backport" the SPFHandler to 2.3. The problem is that in 2.3
> we have no real fastfail. But if you guys want i can backport it anyway.
>
> im +0 todo this. What the other commiters think?
this propably does not accelerate 2.3final, but maybe gives some users
the spin to try it out.
what about putting out 2.3 soon and release a 2.3.1/2.4 shortly
afterwards with the new feature and some bug fixes?
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: Experimental support for SPFHandler in 2.3
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Norman Maurer wrote:
> Vincenso and Noel both aksed me if its possible to "backport"
> the SPFHandler to 2.3. The problem is that in 2.3 we have no
> real fastfail. But if you guys want i can backport it anyway.
> im +0 todo this. What the other commiters think?
As you will find when the mail server's backlog is cleared, I posted an
e-mail a few hours ago with a different thought: merging the SMTP changes
into a v2.4, so that we can get those out as a comfortable base while we
work on v3.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org