Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:49:11 +0100 From: Anton Berezin <tobez@FreeBSD.org> To: Rong-En Fan <rafan@infor.org> Cc: sem@FreeBSD.org Subject: mail/policyd name conflict Message-ID: <20050322084911.GA21666@heechee.tobez.org> In-Reply-To: <200503210441.j2L4fQRB021246@svm.csie.ntu.edu.tw> References: <200503210441.j2L4fQRB021246@svm.csie.ntu.edu.tw>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, We have a PR (ports/79070) for a new port named mail/policyd, which does the following: > 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. 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. What do you guys think about it? Cheers, +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?20050322084911.GA21666>