Re: Bug#261093: ITP: libspf -- official ANSI C sender policy framework (SPF) library
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:50:33AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Eric Dorland <email@example.com> [2004.07.23.2003 +0200]:
> > > Hmmm, I've already packaged libspf2 which is of course confusingly
> > > similar. I'm not really in strong contact with upstream, but is
> > > there a reason for these two separate libs?
> > Well, apparently libspf is the established standard, and i would not
> > mind helping it stay so by putting it into the archive. libspf2 was
> > created purposely to go against libspf. apparently.
> > http://moscow.6o4.ca/shevek.html
> I have to say, that page entirely convinces me that its author is a
> kook, and that I should stay well away from any code written by the
> person railing against Shevek.
And also, from anything written by Shevek. It is quite obvious why he names
his stuff "Official * library". The very idea of "Official" here is the
problem... one that got me thinking as soon as I heard about libspf
yesterday. Had he named it "reference" library, I wouldn't have thought
twice about the issue.
We need a third contender, these two look like they have the wrong profile
to take care of anything that gets close to a mission-critical MTA.
I would, however, strongly suggest that we drop the "official" crap from
libspf's descriptions. Let it contend against all other libs (and I sure
hope we get a third one that is actually worth considering) in equal
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot