Mailing-List: contact mime4j-dev-help@james.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of norman.maurer@googlemail.com
 designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=ihzseRu6YyrSzqc+mXTIBFtP7UlY7oOHi4IslW0RlWYTLNuY7cclQWEtuADP9SwxMn
         NOgQmIQEeU1lx6GF9PKUf5mPfm2OpPrsXcmLxg2lca7Y/RPF4m1YYrJCGu3w68mbPcUI
         Buy3WEdka2SvmuX1g3hgjcDMKBg3+902dhRAQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: norman.maurer@googlemail.com
In-Reply-To: <4B6D5FC3.5080901@apache.org>
References: <4B6C5E23.7050602@apache.org>
	 <9426afb71002051101r1aac4cd0lbd0c66948c60f36b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75bda7a01002051106i22d206dcxaeb5945c87b6ea8c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f470f68e1002051337g1da6fa13ta8009918660f1aeb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4B6D5FC3.5080901@apache.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 20:39:11 +0100
Message-ID: <75bda7a01002061139l5c4b18fcsb5e9b56bc701ff89@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: mime4j maven artifact names
From: Norman Maurer <norman@apache.org>
To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

To be hornest, I think renaming it would help us shorten the artifact
names so after thinkin more on it I think it would make sense to cut
of the prefix

Bye
Norman
2010/2/6, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Norman Maurer <norman@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I think it was Robert who sugguest it in the past
>>>
>>> Anyway I would be happy without the prefix too.
>>>
>>> So +0
>>
>> the reasoning behind the prefix goes like this. apache mime4j is the
>> trademark. anyone can produce another jar and call it mime4j. if
>> someone produces an apache-mime4j jar with nefarious or substandard
>> contents then apache is in a stronger position.
>>
>> but i don't think this has been written in stone and dates back to the
>> misty old days. if people prefer just mime4j then ask on legal discuss
>> for a definitive modern ruling.
>>
>> - robert
>>
>
> Robert et al
>
> I cant think of any project other than James that makes use of such
> naming convention, but I guess it is more important that things stay
> consistent within the same project.
>
> Forget my suggestion
>
> Oleg
>