Mailing List Archive

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> The Postfix integration instructions for postfix-policyd-spf came up on
> postfix-users on Thursday. Here is the thread
>
> http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-06/thread.html#628
>
> In his response, Wietse Venema recommends setting policy_time_limit =
> 3600 in main.cf. This seems like a reasonable action with little
> downside risk, so I suggest that we recommend that in the comments.
> Diff below. Note that this does not change any running code in
> postfix-policyd-spf, just the comments.

Although there won't be another Mail::SPF::Query release, that shouldn't
mean that postfix-policyd-spf will not be developed any further (even if
it's just minor changes as this one). So I think it is time to split out
postfix-policyd-spf from the Mail::SPF::Query package. It could even
switch to using Mail::SPF later (as soon as that's ready).

The question is: where to put postfix-policyd-spf? Should we set up a
separate Svn repo? In the light of the possibility of a separate Debian
package for postfix-policyd-spf (there is an open request[1] for one),
that might make sense.

Opinions?

If we choose to go that route, I'd be willing to set up a repo and
initialize it with the basic environment for a Debian package (README
file, debian/ dir, etc.), but someone else would have to maintain the
thing as I'm not a Postfix expert and would like to avoid the long-term
responsibility for it.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFElAkkwL7PKlBZWjsRAtf2AKCwp9yiU98JGB213jhDA+IvUYdwdACgjA+i
7IEJPzJa6yeeq0B9gm9+4k4=
=C75Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Julian Mehnle wrote:
> The question is: where to put postfix-policyd-spf? Should we set up a
> separate Svn repo? In the light of the possibility of a separate Debian
> package for postfix-policyd-spf (there is an open request[1] for one),
> that might make sense.

For the record, here's the reference I forgot:

1. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=236701

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFElAuawL7PKlBZWjsRAhJ6AKDQF5lvhqWFoXnJH1lThVy28Y2glACfUtWP
HTj+L5/Xs+gFPhUQSog6ryI=
=F2dh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

On Saturday 17 June 2006 09:52, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > The Postfix integration instructions for postfix-policyd-spf came up on
> > postfix-users on Thursday. Here is the thread
> >
> > http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-06/thread.html#628
> >
> > In his response, Wietse Venema recommends setting policy_time_limit =
> > 3600 in main.cf. This seems like a reasonable action with little
> > downside risk, so I suggest that we recommend that in the comments.
> > Diff below. Note that this does not change any running code in
> > postfix-policyd-spf, just the comments.
>
> Although there won't be another Mail::SPF::Query release, that shouldn't
> mean that postfix-policyd-spf will not be developed any further (even if
> it's just minor changes as this one). So I think it is time to split out
> postfix-policyd-spf from the Mail::SPF::Query package. It could even
> switch to using Mail::SPF later (as soon as that's ready).
>
> The question is: where to put postfix-policyd-spf? Should we set up a
> separate Svn repo? In the light of the possibility of a separate Debian
> package for postfix-policyd-spf (there is an open request[1] for one),
> that might make sense.
>
> Opinions?
>
> If we choose to go that route, I'd be willing to set up a repo and
> initialize it with the basic environment for a Debian package (README
> file, debian/ dir, etc.), but someone else would have to maintain the
> thing as I'm not a Postfix expert and would like to avoid the long-term
> responsibility for it.
>
I understand Postfix reasonably well. Unfortunately I do all my programming
in Python and not PERL. I can read PERL well enough to parse what
postfix-policyd-spf does, but if the code needs changes, I'll need help with
that. I'm actually using tumgreyspf at the moment as it's in Python so I
could adjust it to my specific needs. In addition to our distribution of it,
postfix-policyd-spf is also included in the Postfix source distribution.

If someone who understand PERL will assist, I can take responsibility for
integration of postfix-policyd-spf with Postfix and keeping track of what
needs to be updated. If there is someone who knows both Postfix and PERL
well, they would obviously be a better candidate. Please step up.

In the long run, I don't think there will be a lot more work for
postfix-policyd-spf maintenance. The upcoming Postfix 2.3 interface
introduces a sendmail-milter compatible interface. I would imagine that once
that is released, most development will focus there.

Bottom line is that if you feel the need to break it out, I'll help out as I
can with keeping it maintained, but there isn't likely to be a lot more in
the way of change.

Scott K

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> [...] In addition to our distribution of it, postfix-policyd-spf is also
> included in the Postfix source distribution.

I looked into the Postfix distro and 2.2p10 contains an "spf.pl" that says:

# mengwong@pobox.com
# Wed Dec 10 03:52:04 EST 2003
# postfix-policyd-spf
# version 1.03
# see http://spf.pobox.com/

The latest development Postfix release, 2.3-20060614-nonprod, has an
"spf.pl" saying:

# mengwong@pobox.com
# Wed Dec 10 03:52:04 EST 2003
# postfix-policyd-spf
# version 1.06
# see http://spf.pobox.com/

So the Postfix people are definitely considering our postfix-policyd-spf
"official", even though their copy is not entirely up to date. (We're at
1.07[1].)

So should we try to hand the responsibility for postfix-policyd-spf over to
the Postfix developers? In that case I think they _might_ want to stop
including it as an "example", because then their copy would be official.

Would anyone like to propose this handover to the Postfix devs?

> Bottom line is that if you feel the need to break it out, I'll help out
> as I can with keeping it maintained, but there isn't likely to be a lot
> more in the way of change.

It's not so much the desire to break it out of the Mail::SPF::Query
package than the desire to make the latest version (including future
developement, which will not happen within the context of M:S:Q!) available
to Postfix users.

References:
1. http://new.openspf.org/source/mail-spf-query-perl/trunk/examples/postfix-policyd-spf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFElBDswL7PKlBZWjsRAovBAKC8baeIov4MaOgG8ldUUso3IzF/4gCdELK0
r2iC8/ojBIlmocp4bFdWzm8=
=/m3m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

On Saturday 17 June 2006 10:25, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > [...] In addition to our distribution of it, postfix-policyd-spf is also
> > included in the Postfix source distribution.
>
> I looked into the Postfix distro and 2.2p10 contains an "spf.pl" that says:
>
> # mengwong@pobox.com
> # Wed Dec 10 03:52:04 EST 2003
> # postfix-policyd-spf
> # version 1.03
> # see http://spf.pobox.com/
>
> The latest development Postfix release, 2.3-20060614-nonprod, has an
> "spf.pl" saying:
>
> # mengwong@pobox.com
> # Wed Dec 10 03:52:04 EST 2003
> # postfix-policyd-spf
> # version 1.06
> # see http://spf.pobox.com/
>
> So the Postfix people are definitely considering our postfix-policyd-spf
> "official", even though their copy is not entirely up to date. (We're at
> 1.07[1].)
>
> So should we try to hand the responsibility for postfix-policyd-spf over to
> the Postfix developers? In that case I think they _might_ want to stop
> including it as an "example", because then their copy would be official.
>
> Would anyone like to propose this handover to the Postfix devs?
>
I don't think that will fly for a couple of reasons:

1. The Postfix developers don't develop anything except the core Postfix MTA.
They do include some other things in the package, but they are all
contributed, so I don't know that they would be willing to pick up
maintenance of any Postfix Policy daemon.

2. The lead Postfix developers are not big SPF fans. When asked what the
best way to check SPF is, the answer usually runs along the lines of, "don't,
but if you insist, use a policy daemon, do not try and patch the Postfix
internals to do it". SPF is actually pretty much off limits as a discussion
item there.

So, I don't think they would take us up on the offer.

> > Bottom line is that if you feel the need to break it out, I'll help out
> > as I can with keeping it maintained, but there isn't likely to be a lot
> > more in the way of change.
>
> It's not so much the desire to break it out of the Mail::SPF::Query
> package than the desire to make the latest version (including future
> developement, which will not happen within the context of M:S:Q!) available
> to Postfix users.
>
Maybe we just keep the updated one available on the downloads page and point
them there. If there ever is another M:S:Q release, it can be resynchronized
at that point.

> References:
> 1.
> http://new.openspf.org/source/mail-spf-query-perl/trunk/examples/postfix-po
>licyd-spf
>
Scott K

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

>>>>> "Julian" == Julian Mehnle
>>>>> "Re: Updated Setup Comments for postfix-policyd-spf"
>>>>> Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:52:36 +0000

Julian> The question is: where to put postfix-policyd-spf? Should
Julian> we set up a separate Svn repo? In the light of the
Julian> possibility of a separate Debian package for
Julian> postfix-policyd-spf (there is an open request[1] for one),
Julian> that might make sense.

As a long time user of (but not a contributer to) Postfix, Debian, and
SPF, I still see advantages to a separate Debian package for
postfix-policyd-spf.

Julian> If we choose to go that route, I'd be willing to set up a
Julian> repo and initialize it with the basic environment for a
Julian> Debian package (README file, debian/ dir, etc.), but
Julian> someone else would have to maintain the thing as I'm not a
Julian> Postfix expert and would like to avoid the long-term
Julian> responsibility for it.

I scarcely know how to spell perl but otherwise I would be willing to help
as I can in my meager spare time.

jam

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > So should we try to hand the responsibility for postfix-policyd-spf
> > over to the Postfix developers? In that case I think they _might_
> > want to stop including it as an "example", because then their copy
> > would be official.
> >
> > Would anyone like to propose this handover to the Postfix devs?
>
> I don't think that will fly for a couple of reasons:
>
> 1. The Postfix developers don't develop anything except the core
> Postfix MTA. They do include some other things in the package, but they
> are all contributed, so I don't know that they would be willing to pick
> up maintenance of any Postfix Policy daemon.
>
> 2. The lead Postfix developers are not big SPF fans. When asked what
> the best way to check SPF is, the answer usually runs along the lines
> of, "don't, but if you insist, use a policy daemon, do not try and patch
> the Postfix internals to do it". SPF is actually pretty much off limits
> as a discussion item there.
>
> So, I don't think they would take us up on the offer.

Oh, I wasn't aware of that situation.

In this case I think it would be best to set up a dedicated Svn repo for
postfix-policyd-spf, so I've set up a new "software" repo for this and
other small software projects that don't deserve a standalone repo:

http://new.openspf.org/Project_Infrastructure

I renamed postfix-policyd-spf to "postfix-policyd-spf-perl" because libspf2
has another policy daemon that is written in C.

Scott, please contact the Postfix devs and tell them that the latest
postfix-policyd-spf-perl can be found here:

http://new.openspf.org/source/software/postfix-policyd-spf-perl/tags/

The documentation patch you submitted today is already included in 1.08.

I'll see if I can get a postfix-policyd-spf-perl Debian package into the
official Debian archive, but it might take some time as I have other
priorities right now. One can build the package oneself using
`dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc -us -tc` (having installed the
build-essential package before).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFElGFGwL7PKlBZWjsRAu5sAKD0MYsVCAkngV/4g/Yuh21c6EVz5wCfYRI2
Y3UlavTF3D6hVjFdR/hiB8Q=
=/Zs0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

On Saturday 17 June 2006 16:08, Julian Mehnle wrote:
>
> I renamed postfix-policyd-spf to "postfix-policyd-spf-perl" because libspf2
> has another policy daemon that is written in C.
>
> Scott, please contact the Postfix devs and tell them that the latest
> postfix-policyd-spf-perl can be found here:
>
> http://new.openspf.org/source/software/postfix-policyd-spf-perl/tags/
>
> The documentation patch you submitted today is already included in 1.08.
>
> I'll see if I can get a postfix-policyd-spf-perl Debian package into the
> official Debian archive, but it might take some time as I have other
> priorities right now. One can build the package oneself using
> `dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc -us -tc` (having installed the
> build-essential package before).
>
Thanks. Looks good, with one little exception...

An Exception Has Occurred

postfix-policyd-spf-perl/tags/1.08/CHANGES: unknown location

HTTP Response Status

404 Not Found

Python Traceback

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "viewcvs.py", line 3235, in main
request.run_viewcvs()
File "viewcvs.py", line 317, in run_viewcvs
% self.where, '404 Not Found')
ViewCVSException: 404 Not Found: postfix-policyd-spf-perl/tags/1.08/CHANGES:
unknown location

Scott K

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com