Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:10:03 +0100 From: Kirill Ponomarew <krion@voodoo.oberon.net> To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> Cc: edwin@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mail/policyd name conflict Message-ID: <20050322091003.GC48982@voodoo.oberon.net> In-Reply-To: <20050322110303.036cd9e5@it.buh.tecnik93.com> References: <200503210441.j2L4fQRB021246@svm.csie.ntu.edu.tw> <20050322084911.GA21666@heechee.tobez.org> <20050322110303.036cd9e5@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:03:03AM +0200, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:49:11 +0100 > Anton Berezin <tobez@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > 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. > > 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 -Kirill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050322091003.GC48982>