james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norman Maurer ...@byteaction.de>
Subject Re: POP3 and other handlers ...
Date Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:05:06 GMT
Am Sonntag, den 23.07.2006, 11:55 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> > I don't know if "RoamingUsers" is better or worst than "PopBeforeSmtp": 
> > what do ther thinks?
> 
> There are many ways to handle RoamingUsers.  POPBeforeSMTP is at least descriptive.
I called it RoaminUsersHandler cause we could easly use it for
IMAPBeforeSMTP if imap is included. So i thought this "general" name is
the best.

> 
> > 2) Before 3.0 I would like to find a better solution than hardcoding the 
> > check in PassCmdHandler (maybe support the new fastfail in pop3, and add 
> > support for filters after command execution for this).
> 
> Well, I agree and disagree.  I disagree in that these are not really filters; they are
command handlers.  In some cases, the commands filter, but they are structurally indentical.
 And I agree that we should rebuild the protocol handlers in the same manner as we rebuilt
SMTP (and which IMAP, conceptually, used earlier), using pluggable command handlers.
> 
Exactly what i want to do too :-) This will us give more flexibility. I
did the commit with the hardcoded one to "show" what we can improve and
why we should. I think to have a "base" on which we can discuss is
better then nothing.


> > 3) We start having a little mess with authorized users, relaying 
> > allowed, authorized networks and how handlers manage this. Let's
> > keep in mind this and maybe we'll find a clean solution to this.
> 
> I don't disagree.  What if anything do you have in mind at this time?
> 
> 	--- Noel
> 
I agree.. But not in mind yet.

bye
Norman

Mime
View raw message