commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "MERLIN Bertrand" <>
Subject RE: [email]Email.setfrom differs in 1.1
Date Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:54:24 GMT

Absolutely not.

But i'm in a business context and for the moment, it's work.

Development is a balance between what developper desire (an address must be
an address) and a real situation.

The application is old, there's 50000 users, in an administrative entity,
mail are not yet their each day reality and there are afraid of giving the
way to "be watched". And the management don't want to force the decision. So
my work must be underground. I try to increase internal quality of
application, to propose new fonctionnalities using valid addresses to make
"new adepts", but for now i must preserve the old functionnalities. That's
life ...

And javamail has the same constraints and still accept <From> without valid

And i still need a solution with 1.1 version ...



-----Message d'origine-----
De : Siegfried Goeschl []
Envoyé : mardi 4 décembre 2007 17:10
À : Jakarta Commons Users List
Objet : Re: [email]Email.setfrom differs in 1.1

Hi Betrand,

are you absolutely sure that no email server and email processing
application will ever drop/reject an email if contains an invalid <From>


Siegfried Goeschl

MERLIN Bertrand wrote:
> hello,
> i'm actually using  javamail 1.2 + commons email 1.0 in an business
> application
> We don't want to enforce users to provide valid from adresses. It's not a
> serious problem because the mail is still delivered.
> We need an evolution and it's the good time to upgrade to javamail 1.4.1 +
> commons email 1.1 ...
> But mails are no more delivered because of the :
>             // run sanity check on new InternetAddress object; if this
>             // it will throw AddressException.
>             address.validate();
>             in Email.createInternetAddress
> With  javamail 1.4.1 +  commons email 1.0, it's still work ...
> Is there any way to bypass the control ?
> Don't you think that sanity chek is always good for <ReplyTo> but may be
> discussed for <From> ?
> thank you for your work and enduring my frenchy way of talking.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Post-scriptum La Poste
> Ce message est confidentiel. Sous réserve de tout accord conclu par
> écrit entre vous et La Poste, son contenu ne représente en aucun cas un
> engagement de la part de La Poste. Toute publication, utilisation ou
> diffusion, même partielle, doit être autorisée préalablement. Si vous
> n'êtes pas destinataire de ce message, merci d'en avertir immédiatement
> l'expéditeur.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message