Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:28:06 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> To: Kirill Ponomarew <krion@voodoo.oberon.net> Cc: edwin@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mail/policyd name conflict Message-ID: <20050322112806.1c8da68d@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <20050322092136.GE48982@voodoo.oberon.net> References: <200503210441.j2L4fQRB021246@svm.csie.ntu.edu.tw> <20050322084911.GA21666@heechee.tobez.org> <20050322110303.036cd9e5@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <20050322091003.GC48982@voodoo.oberon.net> <20050322111931.58b85961@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <20050322092136.GE48982@voodoo.oberon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:21:36 +0100 Kirill Ponomarew <krion@voodoo.oberon.net> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:19:31AM +0200, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > > > > > > Policyd is an anti-spam plugin for Postfix (written in C) that does > > > > > > greylisting, sender (envelope or SASL) based throttling (on messages > > > > > > and/or volume per defined time unit) and Spamtrap monitoring / > > > > > > blacklisting. > > > > > > > > > > > > Author: cami@mweb.co.za > > > > > > WWW: http://policyd.sourceforge.net/ > > > > > > > > > > clsung brought to my attention that we in fact already have a > > > > > mail/policyd port. I would imagine that typically in this situation > > > > > this would mean tough luck for the newer submission. In this instance, > > > > > however, it looks like the "policyd" name really suits the new port > > > > > better than the existing one, which is: > > > > > > > > > > This is a C port of Meng Wong's policyd for Postfix. The original > > > > > code is available from http://spf.pobox.com/postfix-policyd.txt. > > > > > It implements SPF for postfix, as a policy daemon. > > > > > > > > > > WWW: http://www.libspf2.org/ > > > > > > > > > > So, while both ports use postfix'es policy mechanism, the new port is > > > > > much broader in scope. > > > > > > > > > > So I'd like to suggest to rename the existing mail/policyd to > > > > > mail/policyd-spf, for example. > > > > > > > > So a repo for his one. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Supposing is w/o "something" part, what will this do to portversion (is > > > > it going to go backwards ?) and how will we protect users from self > > > > shooting by portupgrading from the old one to the new one w/o noticing ? > > > > > > ports/MOVED > > > > So this actually works if you still have a port with the same name ? > > Of course not, I was very eager to see the piece of code that would accomplish that :) > but renaming the port and adding info into UPDATING would save the souls of > some people. I'd do the copy and MOVED entry, wait for a week or so and then bring in the new port. -- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050322112806.1c8da68d>