Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:27:32 +0100
From:      Michael Grimm <trashcan@ellael.org>
To:        olli hauer <ohauer@gmx.de>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: postfix-current is marked broken w.r.t SPF support, why?
Message-ID:  <53A1B278-8D80-4DC4-AD6B-CBF6BA89A59A@ellael.org>
In-Reply-To: <56C0F383.5010608@gmx.de>
References:  <CED39316-B800-4B21-B70E-1A662C34F82D@ellael.org> <56C0F383.5010608@gmx.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Olli =E2=80=94

On 14.02.2016, at 22:37, olli hauer <ohauer@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2016-02-08 20:13, Michael Grimm wrote:

>> I am wondering why postfix-current is still marked broken regarding =
SPF support:
>>=20
>> | poudriere build log file excerpt:
>> |	Finished build of mail/postfix-current: Ignored: is marked as =
broken: At the moment, SPF support is unavailable for =
postfix-3.0-20151003
>>=20
>> Thus, I made a custom port removing this restriction in the Makefile, =
and that custom port compiles including SPF support:
>>=20
>> | mail> pkg query %do postfix-custom
>> | security/openssl
>> | devel/icu
>> | mail/dovecot2
>> | mail/libspf2
>> | devel/pcre
>>=20
>> | mail> pkg info | grep libspf
>> | libspf2-1.2.10_2               Sender Rewriting Scheme 2 C =
Implementation
>>=20
>> | mail> ldd `which postfix`
>> | /usr/local/sbin/postfix:
>> | 	...
>> | 	libspf2.so.2 =3D> /usr/local/lib/libspf2.so.2 (0x8024a8000)
>> | 	...
>=20
>=20
> Hi Michael,
>=20
> until now the patch will not apply clean and there is no new patch =
available.
> If we remove the BROKEN message users getting perhaps no notification =
if current will become the new default postfix
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D> Fetching all distfiles required by =
postfix-current-3.0.20151003_1,4 for building
> =3D> SHA256 Checksum OK for postfix/postfix-3.0.3.tar.gz.
> =3D> SHA256 Checksum OK for =
postfix/postfix-2.8.0-libspf2-1.2.x-0.patch.gz.
> =3D=3D=3D> Patching for postfix-current-3.0.20151003_1,4
> =3D=3D=3D> Applying distribution patches for =
postfix-current-3.0.20151003_1,4
> 1 out of 2 hunks failed--saving rejects to =
src/global/mail_params.c.rej
> 1 out of 7 hunks failed--saving rejects to src/smtpd/smtpd.c.rej
> 1 out of 3 hunks failed--saving rejects to src/smtpd/smtpd_check.c.rej
> *** Error code 1


Oh, I see. I didn't realize before that this SPF support will patch =
postfix and add functionality to deal with SPF in smptd, directly.

But that patch is old and made for a postfix version 2.8.x no longer =
supported upstream, and in addition, the author of postfix, Wietse, =
clearly states [1] that:

| Note: Postfix already ships with SPF support, in the form of a plug-in=20=

| policy daemon. This is the preferred integration model, at least until=20=

| SPF is mandated by standards.=20

And in postfix source's examples/smtpd-policy directory the README.SPF =
states:

| See http://www.openspf.org/Software for the current version of the
| SPF policy daemon for Postfix.
|
| SPF support is also available via MILTER plugins, such as sid-milter
| at http://sourceforge.net/projects/sid-milter/ which implements both
| SenderID and SPF.

Hmm, please don't get me wrong, but wouldn't it be "better" to create a =
postfix28 port including that SPF patch for those in need of a smtpd =
built-in SPF functionality and create a stable postfix port (next week =
it will be 3.1) with just including libspf2 library and advise users to =
go with Wietse's recommendations to leave that SPF part for policy =
delegation? Especially with two ports available =
(postfix-policyd-spf-perl-2.010_1 and =
py27-postfix-policyd-spf-python-1.3.2_1), already.
=20
Again, that's just my personal opinion, you are the maintainer, and: I =
might have missed reasons why that might be a bad idea of mine. And, as =
mentioned above, I don't even use SPF. I was only wondering, why postfix =
stable is still 2.11 and came across postfix-current port with the =
BROKEN issue.

Thanks for all your work and regards,
Michael


[1] http://www.postfix.org/addon.html




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53A1B278-8D80-4DC4-AD6B-CBF6BA89A59A>