Mailing List Archive

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:43:55 +1000 "MacShane, Tracy"
<Tracy.Macshane@AirservicesAustralia.com> wrote:
>Is there any convenient way of upgrading python-policy-spf for Postfix?
>I tried simply running the Python installer over the top of the existing
>install but the man files didn't get updated, so it seemed a bit faulty.
>There isn't an RPM package for RHEL 4, so unfortunately I can't take
>that easy option. I did a slash-and-burn of the existing components,
>since Python doesn't provide a package uninstaller, and re-ran the
>install, but would like to avoid doing that again if possible.
>
I think there may be something on the opensuse build service for Red Hat,
but I'm not sure. If not you might be able to use the source RPM and build
it on Red Hat (that's a shot in the dark, almost all my experience is with
Debian and derivatives).

What versions were you upgrading from/to? I actually run the Debian
packages myself.

Scott K


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1020/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1020/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:43:55 +1000 "MacShane, Tracy"
<Tracy.Macshane@AirservicesAustralia.com> wrote:
>>Is there any convenient way of upgrading python-policy-spf for
Postfix?
>>I tried simply running the Python installer over the top of the
existing
>>install but the man files didn't get updated, so it seemed a bit
faulty.
>>There isn't an RPM package for RHEL 4, so unfortunately I can't take
>>that easy option.
>
>I think there may be something on the opensuse build service for Red
Hat,
>but I'm not sure. If not you might be able to use the source RPM and
build
>it on Red Hat (that's a shot in the dark, almost all my experience is
with
>Debian and derivatives).
>
>What versions were you upgrading from/to? I actually run the Debian
>packages myself.
>
>Scott K

I'm going from 0.5.2 to 0.7. Yes, I did check out the RPM package from
OpenSuse, but it sticks everything into strange locations, and didn't
even install any man files. The source RPM might be an option. I would
personally love to use apt, but since we're a Red Hat shop, RPM is it.


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1020/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1020/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, MacShane, Tracy wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:43:55 +1000 "MacShane, Tracy"
> <Tracy.Macshane@AirservicesAustralia.com> wrote:
> >>Is there any convenient way of upgrading python-policy-spf for
> >>Postfix? I tried simply running the Python installer over the top of
> >>the existing install but the man files didn't get updated, so it
> >>seemed a bit faulty. There isn't an RPM package for RHEL 4, so
> >>unfortunately I can't take that easy option.
> >
> >I think there may be something on the opensuse build service for Red
> >Hat, but I'm not sure. If not you might be able to use the source RPM
> >and build it on Red Hat (that's a shot in the dark, almost all my
> >experience is with Debian and derivatives).
> >
> >What versions were you upgrading from/to? I actually run the Debian
> >packages myself.
>
> I'm going from 0.5.2 to 0.7. Yes, I did check out the RPM package from
> OpenSuse, but it sticks everything into strange locations, and didn't
> even install any man files. The source RPM might be an option. I would
> personally love to use apt, but since we're a Red Hat shop, RPM is it.

The OpenSUSE Build Service has RPM's for Red Hat. If you get the right
ones they install in the right places. Check for the ones in my home
directory gerberb.

http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/gerberb/RHEL_5/

There should also be a RHEL_4.


--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1020/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1020/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boyd Lynn Gerber [mailto:gerberb@zenez.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 August 2008 6:25 PM
> To: spf-help@v2.listbox.com
> Subject: Re: [spf-help] RE: Upgrading python-policy-spf
>
>
> The OpenSUSE Build Service has RPM's for Red Hat. If you get
> the right ones they install in the right places. Check for
> the ones in my home directory gerberb.
>
> http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/gerberb/RHEL_5/
>
> There should also be a RHEL_4.
>
>
> --
> Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
> ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047
>


Thanks for the advice, but I don't think the rpm package is suitable for
production use as yet:

rpm -qlp python-policyd-spf-0.7-2.1.noarch.rpm
warning: python-policyd-spf-0.7-2.1.noarch.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY,
key ID d986a842
/etc/cron.d/policyd-spf
/usr/lib/policyd-spf
/usr/lib/policyd-spf/policyd-spf
/usr/lib/policyd-spf/policydspfsupp.py
/usr/lib/policyd-spf/setup.py
/usr/share/doc/python-policyd-spf-0.7
/usr/share/doc/python-policyd-spf-0.7/CHANGES
/usr/share/doc/python-policyd-spf-0.7/README
/usr/share/doc/python-policyd-spf-0.7/TODO
/var/lib/policyd-spf
/var/lib/policyd-spf/config
/var/lib/policyd-spf/config/policyd-spf.conf
/var/lib/policyd-spf/data

No man pages (man 1 policyd-spf or man 5 policyd-spf.conf), and the
files are dropped in /usr/lib and /var/lib, as opposed to /usr/bin for
the executable scripts, /etc for the config and /usr/lib for the python
packages (which seems typical for these kinds of packages in Red Hat, as
well as being the default install location if installing the Python
package). There is also nothing in the README or the non-existent man
pages (which are ironically referenced in the README) as to the purpose
of the cron script (which is calling another non-existent file called
/usr/lib/policyd-spf/policy-spf-clean).

So I think I'll stick to the source Python package for now.


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1020/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1020/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, MacShane, Tracy wrote:
> > The OpenSUSE Build Service has RPM's for Red Hat. If you get
> > the right ones they install in the right places. Check for
> > the ones in my home directory gerberb.
> >
> > http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/gerberb/RHEL_5/
> >
> > There should also be a RHEL_4.
>
> Thanks for the advice, but I don't think the rpm package is suitable for
> production use as yet:
>
> rpm -qlp python-policyd-spf-0.7-2.1.noarch.rpm
> warning: python-policyd-spf-0.7-2.1.noarch.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY,
> key ID d986a842
> /etc/cron.d/policyd-spf
> /usr/lib/policyd-spf
> /usr/lib/policyd-spf/policyd-spf
> /usr/lib/policyd-spf/policydspfsupp.py
> /usr/lib/policyd-spf/setup.py
> /usr/share/doc/python-policyd-spf-0.7
> /usr/share/doc/python-policyd-spf-0.7/CHANGES
> /usr/share/doc/python-policyd-spf-0.7/README
> /usr/share/doc/python-policyd-spf-0.7/TODO
> /var/lib/policyd-spf
> /var/lib/policyd-spf/config
> /var/lib/policyd-spf/config/policyd-spf.conf
> /var/lib/policyd-spf/data
>
> No man pages (man 1 policyd-spf or man 5 policyd-spf.conf), and the
> files are dropped in /usr/lib and /var/lib, as opposed to /usr/bin for
> the executable scripts, /etc for the config and /usr/lib for the python
> packages (which seems typical for these kinds of packages in Red Hat, as
> well as being the default install location if installing the Python
> package). There is also nothing in the README or the non-existent man
> pages (which are ironically referenced in the README) as to the purpose
> of the cron script (which is calling another non-existent file called
> /usr/lib/policyd-spf/policy-spf-clean).
>
> So I think I'll stick to the source Python package for now.
>

They are in a seperate doc rpm. I will look at them more. I prefer them
here and according to the SPEC for rpm they are in the right place. This
SPEC that I am refering to is the one that makes/tries to make all Linux's
uniform. I do not have it handy at the moment. It has been agreed upon
by all the major distro's. They currently are working on an updated
version. It is being dicussed in the working group for standardizing
Linux. You can join the email list if you want. I am following it to see
what changes are being suggested. So far I am keeping in line with it.
They ask for a sperate doc RPM for all packages. I still think they
should be combined in some cases, but I am following their guidelines.

Thanks for the information. I usually add links to /usr/bin/ but removed
them per the guidelines. Maybe I will put them back.

Thanks for the feedback.

--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1020/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1020/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, MacShane, Tracy wrote:
> > >
> > > http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/gerberb/RHEL_5/
> > >
> > > There should also be a RHEL_4.
> >
> > Thanks for the advice, but I don't think the rpm package is suitable for
> > production use as yet:
> >
> > So I think I'll stick to the source Python package for now.
>
> They are in a seperate doc rpm. I will look at them more. I prefer them
> here and according to the SPEC for rpm they are in the right place. This
> SPEC that I am refering to is the one that makes/tries to make all Linux's
> uniform. I do not have it handy at the moment. It has been agreed upon
> by all the major distro's. They currently are working on an updated
> version. It is being dicussed in the working group for standardizing
> Linux. You can join the email list if you want. I am following it to see
> what changes are being suggested. So far I am keeping in line with it.
> They ask for a sperate doc RPM for all packages. I still think they
> should be combined in some cases, but I am following their guidelines.
>
> Thanks for the information. I usually add links to /usr/bin/ but removed
> them per the guidelines. Maybe I will put them back.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSB_Package_API

and these lists

Development discussions related to Fedora <fedora-devel-list@redhat.com>
packaging@lists.linux-foundation.org,
opensuse-project@opensuse.org,
lf_desktop@lists.linux-foundation.org,
rpm-lsb@rpm5.org,
ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com,
rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org,
debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org

and

https://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint

for the rpm-maint list.

--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1020/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1020/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:40:09 -0600 Boyd Lynn Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, MacShane, Tracy wrote:
>> > The OpenSUSE Build Service has RPM's for Red Hat. If you get
>> > the right ones they install in the right places. Check for
>> > the ones in my home directory gerberb.
>> >
>> > http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/gerberb/RHEL_5/
>> >
>> > There should also be a RHEL_4.
>>
>> Thanks for the advice, but I don't think the rpm package is suitable for
>> production use as yet:
>>
>> rpm -qlp python-policyd-spf-0.7-2.1.noarch.rpm
>> warning: python-policyd-spf-0.7-2.1.noarch.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY,
>> key ID d986a842
>> /etc/cron.d/policyd-spf
>> /usr/lib/policyd-spf
>> /usr/lib/policyd-spf/policyd-spf
>> /usr/lib/policyd-spf/policydspfsupp.py
>> /usr/lib/policyd-spf/setup.py
>> /usr/share/doc/python-policyd-spf-0.7
>> /usr/share/doc/python-policyd-spf-0.7/CHANGES
>> /usr/share/doc/python-policyd-spf-0.7/README
>> /usr/share/doc/python-policyd-spf-0.7/TODO
>> /var/lib/policyd-spf
>> /var/lib/policyd-spf/config
>> /var/lib/policyd-spf/config/policyd-spf.conf
>> /var/lib/policyd-spf/data
>>
>> No man pages (man 1 policyd-spf or man 5 policyd-spf.conf), and the
>> files are dropped in /usr/lib and /var/lib, as opposed to /usr/bin for
>> the executable scripts, /etc for the config and /usr/lib for the python
>> packages (which seems typical for these kinds of packages in Red Hat, as
>> well as being the default install location if installing the Python
>> package). There is also nothing in the README or the non-existent man
>> pages (which are ironically referenced in the README) as to the purpose
>> of the cron script (which is calling another non-existent file called
>> /usr/lib/policyd-spf/policy-spf-clean).
>>
>> So I think I'll stick to the source Python package for now.
>>
>
>They are in a seperate doc rpm. I will look at them more. I prefer them
>here and according to the SPEC for rpm they are in the right place. This
>SPEC that I am refering to is the one that makes/tries to make all Linux's
>uniform. I do not have it handy at the moment. It has been agreed upon
>by all the major distro's. They currently are working on an updated
>version. It is being dicussed in the working group for standardizing
>Linux. You can join the email list if you want. I am following it to see
>what changes are being suggested. So far I am keeping in line with it.
>They ask for a sperate doc RPM for all packages. I still think they
>should be combined in some cases, but I am following their guidelines.
>
>Thanks for the information. I usually add links to /usr/bin/ but removed
>them per the guidelines. Maybe I will put them back.
>
>Thanks for the feedback.

I'm guessing you want the FHS:

http://www.pathname.com/fhs/

The upstream setup.py (and my Debian/Ubuntu packages) are FHS compliant.

The README assumes the man pages are always installed. I'm not sure how
things work in opensuse, but in Debian that is expected (it's actually
required). -doc packages are for larger documentation that you might want
to use on a local work station on not on the server. I'd appreciate it if
you would include the man pages in the basic package.

The cron script should be removed. That's a legacy of the greylisting
functionality in the package a derived pypolicyd-spf from (tumgreyspf).

Scott K

P.S. I know norhing about how yhe RPM world works, so no guarantees any of
the above is appropriate for opensuse.


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1020/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1020/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I'm guessing you want the FHS:
>
> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
>
> The upstream setup.py (and my Debian/Ubuntu packages) are FHS compliant.
>
> The README assumes the man pages are always installed. I'm not sure how
> things work in opensuse, but in Debian that is expected (it's actually
> required). -doc packages are for larger documentation that you might want
> to use on a local work station on not on the server. I'd appreciate it if
> you would include the man pages in the basic package.
>
> The cron script should be removed. That's a legacy of the greylisting
> functionality in the package a derived pypolicyd-spf from (tumgreyspf).
>
> Scott K
>
> P.S. I know norhing about how yhe RPM world works, so no guarantees any of
> the above is appropriate for opensuse.

I just noticed he grabbed the .7 and not the .7.1. I think things changed
between them. I use your .tar.gz file so if they are there they should be
in the RPM. I am still trying to get everything to the various
specs/ABI's. It is a realy problem. Trying to meet all the various
distribution requirements. Thanks for making the based. I hope more
things are fixed with each release.

Thanks,

--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1020/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1020/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Tuesday 12 August 2008 10:53, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

>
> I just noticed he grabbed the .7 and not the .7.1.

The only thing that changed in 0.7.1 were some documentation improvements.
The files provided and the code are identical.

Scott K


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1020/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1020/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 August 2008 10:53, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
> >
> > I just noticed he grabbed the .7 and not the .7.1.
>
> The only thing that changed in 0.7.1 were some documentation improvements.
> The files provided and the code are identical.

I noticed that there were errors in some of the .7 builds, that are not
there in the .7.1. Why I do not know. I know that the .7.1 have all to
docs and manual pages. I accidently triggered a rebuild of the repo's, so
once they finish he should see that everything is where is should be.
Even the link from /usr/lib/... to /usr/bin/.

BTW, do you need a copy of the current spec file?



--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1020/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1020/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

I gave up with trying to keep a current spec file in the package. If
someone here packages stuff for Fedora (or some other RPM distro), I'd
encourage them to work with you on maintaining it.

Thanks for offerring,

Scott K


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1020/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1020/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I gave up with trying to keep a current spec file in the package. If
> someone here packages stuff for Fedora (or some other RPM distro), I'd
> encourage them to work with you on maintaining it.
>
> Thanks for offerring,

Your welcome, I haved used the .7.1 rpms for

CentOS_5
i586
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm
x86_64
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm

Fedora_8
i586
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm
x86_64
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm

Mandriva_2007 But I do not have this version, I did use the src.rpm.
i586
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm
x86_64
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm

RHEL_5
i586
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm
x86_64
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm

SUSE/OpenSUSE

SLE_10 SLES and SLED 10.
i586
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm
x86_64
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm

openSUSE_10.2
i586
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm
x86_64
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm

openSUSE_10.3
i586
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm
x86_64
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm

openSUSE_11.0
i586
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm
x86_64
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm

openSUSE_Factory
I may have to make some changes as they have a new rpmlint
i586
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm
x86_64
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm


So I have not had any problems on these Distributions.

--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1020/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1020/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
> Mandriva_2007 But I do not have this version, I did use the src.rpm.
> i586
> python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
> python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm
> x86_64
> python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
> python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm

This one is currently broken and I will fix it later as time permits.
There have been some changes to the Build Service and make it fail.

> SUSE/OpenSUSE
>
> openSUSE_11.0
> i586
> python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
> python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm
> x86_64
> python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
> python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm

The SUSE team has made a stricter rpmlint and because of it this one is
currently broken and I will fix it later as time permits.

> openSUSE_Factory
> I may have to make some changes as they have a new rpmlint
> i586
> python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
> python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm
> x86_64
> python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.noarch.rpm
> python-policyd-spf-0.7.1-19.1.src.rpm

Alpha 3 has changes and is currently broken and I will fix it later when
the changes for alpha 3 and other things with the alpha are fixed. There
have been some changes to the Build Service and make it fail. I have to
wait for some things to be rebuild.

--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/1020/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/1020/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com