From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 4 15:15:14 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 600EFC57 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2014 15:15:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F528EB7 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2014 15:15:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s94FFEOX064722 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2014 15:15:14 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 193721] Proposed replacement for mail/filtermail Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 15:15:14 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports Tree X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk X-Bugzilla-Status: Needs Triage X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 15:15:14 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193721 --- Comment #2 from Mike Clarke --- (In reply to Marcus von Appen from comment #1) > Would you care to maintain it? We'd like to avoid (re)adding a port without > a specific maintainer. Yes, I'm willing to maintain it, in which case the maintainer address should be jmc-filtermail@milibyte.co.uk. I should however point out that my programming skills are somewhat limited. I should cope OK with keeping it up to date but if any major problems arise I could be out of my depth and would need to rely on advice from the community. Version 0.8.2 was unchanged for 5 years until 0.8.3 came out in May this year so if the previous history is followed I don't expect there will be much attention needed. A further point to consider is the use of the name filtermail. The original program is called mailfilter but the port and the program were renamed filtermail to avoid a conflict with an existing port. There is no longer a port called mailfilter so it is no longer essential to rename the port. Since filtermail 0.8.2 has already been deleted from ports then there might be something to be said in favour of re-introducing it as mailfilter. Personally I'd be inclined to stick to filtermail as the name in order to maintain continuity but there doesn't seem to have been any complaints in the mailing lists about filtermail being deleted so perhaps continuity is no great issue. Reverting the name to mailfilter would also avoid any implied association with the mail domain services provided by http://www.filtermail.com/ If it's felt that the port ought to be called mailfilter then perhaps now would be the most appropriate time to do so. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.