Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 973490
[PRD] EAP62_1070 [RFE] Support custom transports in mail subsystem
Last modified: 2014-08-14 11:18:07 EDT
The mail subsystem in EAP 6 currently only allows configuration of specific transports (SMTP, POP3 and IMAP). The customer wants to be able to set up their own custom JavaMail transport via the domain configuration" ... see jira for more details.
Emailed jlivings (contributor to linked JIRA) regarding possible sources for documentation content.
JavaMail supports multiple "transports" such as SMTP. In earlier version
of JBoss you could configure arbitrary transports for the entries bound
In EAP 6 profiles you can only configure smtp, pop and imap. That jira
is for adding the ability to be able to configure additional transports
(such as custom ones) as well.
Topic 24332 has been created using information supplied by Tomaz Cerar.
Topic 24332 has been added to the 6.2 Administration and Configuration Guide.
This bug will be moved to ON_QA once the document is available for review.
The content is now available for review at  under the title: Mail subsystem
Please ensure you are viewing version 2.0-8 or later (check the Revision History).
The topic is present on URL mentioned above.
However I miss the description of how properties are defined for custom protocols, as there is a difference between using "fully qualified" property a using a "flat" name. The later will be available under the name "mail.$ServerName.someprop".
Requesting information on how to fulfil this concern from Tomaz Cerar (who provided the original information).
Jakub & Scott, this is very good question.
By default if you don't use fully qualified name for property as in just "host" or "custom_prop" that property gets translated to mail.<server-name>.property_name
For 6.2 we implemented RFE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968200 that allows you also to use any fully qualified property name unmodified.
Rule is quite simple if property name contains "." we threat it as fully qualified name.
For example this "mail.imap.timeout" would pass trough completely as is.
Thanks for the feedback Tomaz,
I've added the following text to step 5 in the procedure (wherein the user is instructed to "provide the host information as part of properties"):
When defining custom protocols, any property name that contains a dot (.) is
considered to be a fully-qualified name and passed as it is supplied. Any other
format (my-property, for example) will be translated into the following format: mail.server-name.my-property.
I'll admit I'm a little fuzzy on the technicalities being discussed here, so I hope this fulfills the QA request.