On 2021-05-25 10:44 p.m., Daniel Jakots wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:00:07 +0000, Stuart Henderson
> <stu@spacehopper.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2019/11/26 19:08, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
>>> These 3 are python2-only, and the only consumers are in a chain from
>>> one to the next. (py-policyd-spf needs py-spf which needs
>>> py-authres).
>>>
>>> Is anyone using these?
>>>
>>> Any objections to removing them?
>>>
>>> --Kurt
>>>
>>
>> I don't use them (I don't think SPF is really useful) but
>> py-policyd-spf is the main recommended "standalone" implementation of
>> SPF for Postfix (as opposed to being part of a much more complex
>> system like rspamd). So if anybody is using them there's not much
>> alternative (there is a similarly named perl program but it's not
>> very good).
>>
>
> In 2017 Giovanni (added in Cc:) sent a wip diff for mail/py-policyd-spf.
> This never went in and then in January 2019 he imported
> mail/postfix-policyd-spf-perl. Is that the perl program you had in mind
> Stuart?
>
> I assume since Giovanni imported the perl thing, he doesn't use the
> python one anymore.
>
> Given there's been a WIP diff to update py-policyd-spf since 2017 and
> it never went in, it seems there's not much interest for it. The
> proposal from kmos to remove it didn't seem to have shocked anyone into
> maintaining it either.
>
> What do you think about the situation Giovanni?
>
> (I looked at it because I recently added spf support to my postfix
> setup, and I did it through postfix-policyd-spf-perl).
>
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
Hello,
Does the postfix-policyd-spf-perl version provide identical
functionality to the Python one ?
Thanks,
- J
No comments:
Post a Comment