Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of rickmcg@gmail.com designates
 64.233.184.228 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=nVkvn3SHcddYRGd+6wIpBlohJtoBFUOmzAXZJAxCc/li6Q5yxCJmOKL+zvFwTY43Bfgx8xuVtXHzhBzFWzUFKhM45nP+95+p1qxwKrhDVc1HE7zxo4KAHYq/nlB8X2+J++zaSmKvcSjCE+Mh4qMHfEZ9xG322x4XkzliTo1hF0U=
Message-ID: <44A5457A.8060805@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:38:34 -0400
From: Rick McGuire <rickmcg@gmail.com>
Reply-To: rickmcg@gmail.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
CC: James Developers List <server-dev@james.apache.org>
Subject: Re: geronimo javamail and James (Was: [RTC] Removal of the
 javamail-transport
 code.)
References: <449AD876.7060707@gmail.com> <449E21D7.1080801@toolazydogs.com>
 <15624540.576661151667445020.JavaMail.root@81-174-50-40.vps.virtuo.it>
 <44A51B78.6040709@toolazydogs.com>
 <18166318.580081151672388619.JavaMail.root@81-174-50-40.vps.virtuo.it>
 <44A53498.6090400@toolazydogs.com>
 <4229170.586511151679363661.JavaMail.root@81-174-50-40.vps.virtuo.it>
In-Reply-To: 
 <4229170.586511151679363661.JavaMail.root@81-174-50-40.vps.virtuo.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>> Why would we need both?
>>>
>>> We don't need both at the same time.
>>> But:
>>> 1) I guess that geronimo-javamail is not as stable and feature 
>>> complete as the sun-javamail.
>>> 2) We use javamail 1.4 apis (geronimo-javamail seems to be 1.3 
>>> compliant)
>>>
>>> So what I think we could do is adding the handling of geronimo 
>>> specific stuff while keeping the default to sun.
>>> This way one could test it and find out the differences.
>>
>> 1) Maybe not as stable.  What features do you think are missing?
>
> I've not checked geronimo smtp transport, Is there a feature list for 
> current geronimo stmp implementation compared to sun smtp transport?
All answers below are for the latest version.  The one that shipped in 
Geronimo 1.0 did not support these.
>
> Does it support the quitwait? 
yes

> bindaddress/port for sockets?
yes

> does it support appending further strings at the end of the MAIL 
> command and the RCPT command (ORCPT, NOTIFY).
yes
> How does it compare in converting messages from 7bit to 8bit when 
> sending to  servers that supports 8bitmime, and from 8bit to 7bit when 
> sending to servers that do not support 8bitmime?
I haven't implemented 8bitmime yet, as I've not really found a good 
description for what needs to be done to support that.  I don't think 
it's a big issue, I just
need to understand what it means to support it.

>
> Stefano
>
> PS: About the 7bit<->8bit mime conversion I wrote some mail to the 
> javamail interest and seems that they are buggy in the sun-javamail 
> transport.
>
>