amavisd-new 2.7.2 vs 2.8.0:?

[Michael Scheidell]

Q what are he differences?, why two versions?

(and, Mark:  for FreeBSD ports, do we need two different versions in ports?)

--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
> | SECNAP Network Security Corporation

• Best Mobile Solutions Product of 2011
• Best Intrusion Prevention Product
• Hot Company Finalist 2011
• Best Email Security Product
• Certified SNORT Integrator

---

This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap®.

For Information please see http://www.spammertrap.com/

---

[Renato Botelho]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Michael Scheidell
<michael....@secnap.com> wrote:
> Q what are he differences?, why two versions?
>
> (and, Mark: for FreeBSD ports, do we need two different versions in ports?)

Hello Michael,

My understanding, and release_notes can confirm, is 2.7.2 is a bugfix
release of 2.7 series, with no new features and 2.8.0 is a new serie with
a lot of new features.

For FreeBSD ports, if you decide just update the port to 2.8.0, it would
be useful to add a note on UPDATING if config file syntax has changes
or other big changes happened in this version. You can also create
a port called amavisd-new27 and move current version to there.

Personally, i vote for keep just one version on ports collection, 2.8.0.

Regards
--
Renato Botelho

[Mark Martinec]

Michael,

> amavisd-new 2.7.2 vs 2.8.0:?

> Q what are he differences?, why two versions?

I just wanted to leave 2.7 in a good state before moving on,
so that very conservative folks can stay there if they
choose to.

> (and, Mark: for FreeBSD ports, do we need two different versions
> in ports?)

No, just move on to 2.8.0, should be compatible with 2.7.1.

Consider adding dependency on net/p5-IO-Socket-IP;

and optionally a 0MQ dependency: on net/p5-ZeroMQ & devel/zmq,
in which case something like amavis-mc-init.sh start script
or its lookalike should be installed in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/,
and programs amavis-services, amavisd-status, amavis-mc and
amavisd-snmp-agent-zmq installed. If 0MQ is not needed, none
of these is needed. Btw, If somebody would be willing to make
a port for Crossroads I/O (which is a fork for 0MQ, by the
original developers), that would be nice.

Renato Botelho wrote:
> My understanding, and release_notes can confirm, is 2.7.2 is a bugfix
> release of 2.7 series, with no new features and 2.8.0 is a new serie with
> a lot of new features.

Right.

> For FreeBSD ports, if you decide just update the port to 2.8.0, it would
> be useful to add a note on UPDATING if config file syntax has changes
> or other big changes happened in this version.

Nothing worth mentioning regarding compatibility.
Perhaps optional 0MQ support can be mentioned, or not.

> You can also create
> a port called amavisd-new27 and move current version to there.
> Personally, i vote for keep just one version on ports collection, 2.8.0.

Agreed. As there are no important incompatibilities, I don't
see a need for an additional version-specific or -devel port.

Mark

[Quanah Gibson-Mount]

--On Wednesday, July 04, 2012 2:52 PM +0200 Mark Martinec

<Mark.M...@ijs.si> wrote:

> Michael,
>
> > amavisd-new 2.7.2 vs 2.8.0:?
> > Q what are he differences?, why two versions?
>
> I just wanted to leave 2.7 in a good state before moving on,
> so that very conservative folks can stay there if they
> choose to.
>
> > (and, Mark: for FreeBSD ports, do we need two different versions
> > in ports?)
>
> No, just move on to 2.8.0, should be compatible with 2.7.1.
>
> Consider adding dependency on net/p5-IO-Socket-IP;
>
> and optionally a 0MQ dependency: on net/p5-ZeroMQ & devel/zmq,
> in which case something like amavis-mc-init.sh start script
> or its lookalike should be installed in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/,
> and programs amavis-services, amavisd-status, amavis-mc and
> amavisd-snmp-agent-zmq installed. If 0MQ is not needed, none
> of these is needed. Btw, If somebody would be willing to make
> a port for Crossroads I/O (which is a fork for 0MQ, by the
> original developers), that would be nice.

I'm kind of curious as to whether or not 0MQ is dead. I've filed multiple
bug reports with them with zero feedback.

<https://github.com/lestrrat/p5-ZMQ/issues?state=open>

--Quanah

--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Sr. Member of Technical Staff
Zimbra, Inc
A Division of VMware, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

[Henrik K]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 04:30:12PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>
> I'm kind of curious as to whether or not 0MQ is dead. I've filed
> multiple bug reports with them with zero feedback.

Are you serious? 24 days and you believe it's dead? Even during the most
popular holiday season? :-)

[Steve]

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 09:07:58 +0300
> Von: Henrik K <he...@hege.li>
> An: amavis...@amavis.org
> Betreff: Re: amavisd-new 2.7.2 vs 2.8.0:?

You don't know Quanah! When he wants something then he wants it to be done/ready yesterday.

[Mark Martinec]

Quanah,

> I'm kind of curious as to whether or not 0MQ is dead.
> I've filed multiple bug reports with them with zero feedback.

> <https://github.com/lestrrat/p5-ZMQ/issues?state=open>

Don't know, I hope it's not dead, there have been releases
since the fork.

But since the fork of a 0MQ project into a Crossroads I/O,
with two main developers actively continuing their work there,
seems to me the other one has a better prospect. Time will tell.

On 2012-07-07 10:53, Steve wrote:
> You don't know Quanah! When he wants something then he wants it to be done/ready yesterday.

:)

Quanah has been very patient with me dragging my feet regarding
improving LDAP support. Appreciated.

Mark

[Steve]

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 12:44:54 +0200
> Von: Mark Martinec <Mark.Marti...@ijs.si>

> An: amavis...@amavis.org
> Betreff: Re: amavisd-new 2.7.2 vs 2.8.0:?

Well... I see him often nagging/(requesting) on the dspam mailing list for ipv6 support. Last time he even sent a bunch of links for how to implement ipv6 into c code. Funny. When I read it I asked my self: he took the time to find documentation what needs to be added/changed in c code for ipv6 code (in addition to ipv4 code) and this is not the first time he is asking for that on the list. And so far no one of the community has made anything. And this guy works for EMC/VMware where a gazillion of coders are working and he can not provide a small patch adding that ipv6 support that he is claiming to be easy to add? Is the community not supposed to work that way, that everyone is contributing as much as they can?


> Mark
>
// Steve

[Mark Martinec]

Steve wrote:

> Well... I see him often nagging/(requesting) on the dspam mailing list for ipv6 support.
> Last time he even sent a bunch of links for how to implement ipv6 into c code. Funny.
> When I read it I asked my self: he took the time to find documentation what needs to
> be added/changed in c code for ipv6 code (in addition to ipv4 code) and this is not the
> first time he is asking for that on the list. And so far no one of the community has
> made anything. And this guy works for EMC/VMware where a gazillion of coders are working
> and he can not provide a small patch adding that ipv6 support that he is claiming to be
> easy to add? Is the community not supposed to work that way, that everyone is contributing
> as much as they can?

Not speaking about this particular dspam case (which I'm not familiar
with), nor about Quanah in particular, but generally I think it is
good that a packager/reseller/company comes upstream with suggestions
or problem reports which could let everyone benefit, instead of
applying a fix/improvement in his own walled garden, eventually
leading to incompatibilities or forks. Sounds like requesting
support for IPv6 in y2012 falls under that category, where the
upstream should be persuaded to implement it.

Mark

[Patrick Ben Koetter]

* Steve <steee...@gmx.net>:

>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > Datum: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 12:44:54 +0200
> > Von: Mark Martinec <Mark.Marti...@ijs.si>
> > An: amavis...@amavis.org
> > Betreff: Re: amavisd-new 2.7.2 vs 2.8.0:?
>
> > Quanah,
> >
> > > I'm kind of curious as to whether or not 0MQ is dead.
> > > I've filed multiple bug reports with them with zero feedback.
> > > <https://github.com/lestrrat/p5-ZMQ/issues?state=open>
> >
> > Don't know, I hope it's not dead, there have been releases
> > since the fork.
> >
> > But since the fork of a 0MQ project into a Crossroads I/O,
> > with two main developers actively continuing their work there,
> > seems to me the other one has a better prospect. Time will tell.
> >
> >
> > On 2012-07-07 10:53, Steve wrote:
> > > You don't know Quanah! When he wants something then he wants it to be
> > done/ready yesterday.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Quanah has been very patient with me dragging my feet regarding
> > improving LDAP support. Appreciated.
> >

> Well... I see him often nagging/(requesting) on the dspam mailing list for ipv6 support. Last time he even sent a bunch of links for how to implement ipv6 into c code. Funny. When I read it I asked my self: he took the time to find documentation what needs to be added/changed in c code for ipv6 code (in addition to ipv4 code) and this is not the first time he is asking for that on the list. And so far no one of the community has made anything. And this guy works for EMC/VMware where a gazillion of coders are working and he can not provide a small patch adding that ipv6 support that he is claiming to be easy to add? Is the community not supposed to work that way, that everyone is contributing as much as they can?

You do it yourself, you pay someone else or you wait until someone does it
when that persons thinks the time is right.

p@rick

--
All technical questions asked privately will be automatically answered on the
list and archived for public access unless privacy is explicitely required and
justified.

saslfinger (debugging SMTP AUTH):
<http://postfix.state-of-mind.de/patrick.koetter/saslfinger/>

[Quanah Gibson-Mount]

--On Saturday, July 07, 2012 12:59 PM +0200 Steve <steee...@gmx.net>
wrote:

If one knew Quanah, they might realize he frequently and often contributes
code back to projects*, as well as donating time to be the release engineer
for the OpenLDAP project, as well, of course, of doing his day job.

I first asked about DSPAM IPv6 support on 7/18/2011. I next asked about it
on 4/23/2012. I hardly think asking if support has been implemented for a
significant feature only twice in the span of about a year is being
particularly pushy. Taking on IPv6 support for DSPAM, when I (at least at
the time) had zero capability to do IPv6 in-house did not seem particularly
wise to me.


*) A small, random sample

<http://www.openafs.org/credits.html>
<https://github.com/nviennot/nginx-tcp-keepalive/blob/591dc781784cf0afcd2456302b405d86f0ce6be2/ngx_http_tcp_keepalive_module.c>

quanah@zre-ldap001:~/p4/main/ThirdParty/postfix/src/postfix-2.10-20120422$
grep -wi quanah *
HISTORY: Documentation: MacOS process limit configuration by Quanah
HISTORY: Original code by Quanah Gibson-Mount adapted by Victor
HISTORY: OpenLDAP API. Problem reported by Quanah Gibson-Mount. Fix

<https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3521800&group_id=269812&atid=1147701>

[Quanah Gibson-Mount]

--On Saturday, July 07, 2012 12:59 PM +0200 Steve <steee...@gmx.net>
wrote:

> And this guy works for EMC/VMware where a
> gazillion of coders are working and he can not provide a small patch
> adding that ipv6 support that he is claiming to be easy to add? Is the
> community not supposed to work that way, that everyone is contributing as
> much as they can?

I also don't get this. What does it matter where I work, or how many
coders work where I work? Now, if I owned EMC, then I'm sure what
interests me would likely be of interest to them. However, I don't. I
work for VMWare, as an employee in the Zimbra division. In fact, I'm the
only person in the Zimbra division who actively works on external open
source. And again, adding support for a feature when I can't test it is
not really something I feel is appropriate to do. Now that I do have ipv6
support, maybe I'll look into it. But this still isn't an EMC/VMW "wish
list" item. It was my own personal interest.

[Steve]

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:18:15 -0700
> Von: Quanah Gibson-Mount <qua...@zimbra.com>
> An: Steve <steee...@gmx.net>, amavis...@amavis.org

> Betreff: Re: amavisd-new 2.7.2 vs 2.8.0:?

> --On Saturday, July 07, 2012 12:59 PM +0200 Steve <steee...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>
> > And this guy works for EMC/VMware where a
> > gazillion of coders are working and he can not provide a small patch
> > adding that ipv6 support that he is claiming to be easy to add? Is the
> > community not supposed to work that way, that everyone is contributing
> as
> > much as they can?
>
> I also don't get this. What does it matter where I work, or how many
> coders work where I work? Now, if I owned EMC, then I'm sure what
> interests me would likely be of interest to them. However, I don't. I
> work for VMWare, as an employee in the Zimbra division. In fact, I'm the
> only person in the Zimbra division who actively works on external open
> source. And again, adding support for a feature when I can't test it is
> not really something I feel is appropriate to do. Now that I do have ipv6
> support, maybe I'll look into it. But this still isn't an EMC/VMW "wish
> list" item. It was my own personal interest.
>

I understand you but if this is a personal interest then why are you not using your personal email address? For me seeing @zimbra.com automatically tells me that you are sending that message in the name of your employer.

btw: This all is pretty much does not belong here in the amavis-user mailing list. Better would be to just address me alone.