Re: Introductions ... re stefano

[Alan Williamson <al...@blog-city.com>]

Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> Namely there is no call-back when the MAIL FROM or RCPT TO is invoked 
>> by a remote SMTP server.
> 
> I agree this is a big missing piece.
> 
> I think we should provide a more fine API for this. Sometimes mailets 
> only care of connection data, sometimes of SMTP envelope data (sender, 
> recipients...), sometimes only of mime message header, sometimes of the 
> full body, sometimes of the mime structure of the body, sometimes 
> combinations of the previous.
> 
> I think we should provide a mean to make the container aware of this. 
> Now that even james started supporting fastfail operations (in protocol 
> handlers) it would be cool if we all could agree on something like 
> "mailets" for the in-protocol operations.

*nods* it would be wonderful if we could agree on this.  At the moment 
we've implemented it as a separate Interface.  You register the listener 
and when the emails come in, then you have a hook as to what you want to 
do with it.  As you said to "fastfail operations" (i love that phrase).

If the JAMES implementation is already doing this functionality; then it 
sounds as if it should be relatively trivial to move this handler 
functional out as an interface and include it as part of the official 
Mailet API.

btw - i wasn't expecting a reply at the weekend, so thank you.

Re: Introductions ... re stefano

[Danny Angus <da...@gmail.com>]

On 11/11/06, Alan Williamson <al...@blog-city.com> wrote:

> If the JAMES implementation is already doing this functionality; then it
> sounds as if it should be relatively trivial to move this handler
> functional out as an interface and include it as part of the official
> Mailet API.

Like Noel I'm not 100% sure if it should be in the API, however it
might be an optional extension to it.

d.