Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:12:55 +0100 From: Anton Berezin <tobez@FreeBSD.org> To: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> Cc: sem@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mail/policyd name conflict Message-ID: <20050322091255.GB21666@heechee.tobez.org> In-Reply-To: <20050322090810.GY34807@k7.mavetju> References: <200503210441.j2L4fQRB021246@svm.csie.ntu.edu.tw> <20050322084911.GA21666@heechee.tobez.org> <20050322090810.GY34807@k7.mavetju>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:08:10PM +1100, Edwin Groothuis wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:49:11AM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote: > > So I'd like to suggest to rename the existing mail/policyd to > > mail/policyd-spf, for example. It might be a good idea to rename the > > new port to mail/policyd-somethingelse anyway, if we can come up with a > > sufficiently descriptive (and short!) "somethingelse" part. > > I would call them > mail/postfix-policyd > mail/postfix-policyd-spf > > But that is what you said already. More or less, but yes, the postfix- prefix is even better. > If there are getting more which just are described as postfix > "policyd" ports, just call them postfix-policyd-a, postfix-policyd-b > and so on. Well we already have mail/postgrey and mail/sqlgrey, which also use policy daemon mechanism. I would hate to rename them to mail/postfix-policyd-greylist-db and mail/postfix-policyd-greylist-sql, though. :-) \Anton. -- The moronity of the universe is a monotonically increasing function. -- Jarkko Hietaniemi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050322091255.GB21666>