Latent defect in FetchPOP and NNTPSpooler?

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Shouldn't this line:

   message = new MimeMessage(null, in);

be:

   message = new
MimeMessage(Session.getDefaultInstance(System.getProperties(), null), in);

The same thing is present in NNTPSpooler.  Some methods, e.g., reply(),
expect a non-null session.  Right now we don't exercise one of those
methods, but changes in either our code or JavaMail could.

	--- Noel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

RE: Latent defect in FetchPOP and NNTPSpooler?

[Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>]

You're probably right, I'd like to see what effect replying using a null session had first though.
It might, perversely, be worse to use a session without any mail properties than no session at all.

d.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
> Sent: 14 May 2003 17:23
> To: James-Dev Mailing List
> Subject: Latent defect in FetchPOP and NNTPSpooler?
> 
> 
> Shouldn't this line:
> 
>    message = new MimeMessage(null, in);
> 
> be:
> 
>    message = new
> MimeMessage(Session.getDefaultInstance(System.getProperties(), null), in);
> 
> The same thing is present in NNTPSpooler.  Some methods, e.g., reply(),
> expect a non-null session.  Right now we don't exercise one of those
> methods, but changes in either our code or JavaMail could.
> 
> 	--- Noel
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org