james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Short" <ssh...@postx.com>
Subject RE: Local vs Remote delivery failures
Date Fri, 06 Sep 2002 16:46:47 GMT

We have a version of RemoteDelivery that takes a configurable processor
name for routing bounce messages to. I haven't submitted it because it
was a bit of a hack, I lifted the bounce method out of James.java and
made it use an optional bounceProcessor parameter.  

But my point is that the idea works well and it's pretty easy to
implement.

Steve



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Serge Knystautas [mailto:sergek@lokitech.com] 
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 8:51 AM
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: Re: Local vs Remote delivery failures
> 
> 
> Yeah, I like that idea of a bounce processor for the RemoteDelivery.
> 
> So the thing is, the LocalDelivery mailet DOESN'T handle a bounce 
> condition.  The process that calles LocalDelivery is supposed 
> to check 
> that this is a valid mailbox before calling LocalDelivery to 
> store it... 
> the code you are looking at in LocalDelivery (that's sending 
> it to the 
> error processor) should only get used if the mail repository 
> is corrupt 
> or there's some other configuration error.  You use a matcher before 
> calling LocalDelivery so that you can then handle delivering 
> to default 
> mailboxes or a custom bounce or what-have-you.
> 
> RemoteDelivery also has a few states and additional info 
> because it will 
> contain who it was trying to connect to and the error messages. 
> RemoteDelivery also has retries in certain cases, you actually have a 
> variety of "bounce"-esque conditions... I've seen some servers give a 
> warning notice when a message doesn't deliver immediately and 
> gets put 
> in the try-again-later bucket.
> 
> Anyway, just some thoughts... please feel free to improve on 
> it however 
> you think best.  I'm still too busy besides lurking and moderating. :(
> 
> -- 
> Serge Knystautas
> Loki Technologies - Unstoppable Websites http://www.lokitech.com
> 
> Danny Angus wrote:
> > worthwhile, yes.
> > 
> > Although the mailet API has bounce() in the mailet context 
> I'm pretty 
> > sure that creating a bounce processor which would allow people to 
> > configure bounces would be worthwhile. I think you'd have 
> to alter all 
> > the bounce() methods to send their mail to the bounce processor 
> > though.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
> >>Sent: 06 September 2002 15:46
> >>To: James Developers List
> >>Subject: RE: Local vs Remote delivery failures
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Why isn't the handling consistent?
> >>>
> >>>probably because this is an Open Source project, and any number of
> >>
> >>different
> >>
> >>>people have any number of different ideas.
> >>
> >>That was my first thought, but checking the code and CVS first, it 
> >>appeared to come from the same origin.  So I thought that 
> there might 
> >>be some deeper
> >>reason for why it was handled two different ways; a reason 
> I had missed.
> >>
> >>Similarly with my question about instrumenting LocalDelivery and 
> >>RemoteDelivery to accept a processor name for failure 
> notification.  I 
> >>wasn't making the assumption that it hadn't been considered in the 
> >>past. Instead I was asking.
> >>
> >>Should I take your responses to mean that you don't know of any 
> >>reasons for the difference, and that you believe it might be 
> >>worthwhile (post-2.1?) to make such a change?
> >>
> >>	--- Noel
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <mailto:james-dev-> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For 
> additional commands, 
> e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> 
> 

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


Mime
View raw message