[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: amavisd-milter: Request for review

Harald Jenny wrote:
> Hello Justin B Rye,
> please find my remarks below:
>>> Package: amavisd-milter
>>> Architecture: any
>>> Depends: ${misc:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends}, amavisd-new (>= 2.4.3)
>>> Recommends: sendmail (>= 8.13.8-3) | postfix (>= 2.3.8-2+etch1)
>>> Conflicts: amavisd-new-milter
>>> Description: interface between sendmail-milter and amavisd-new
>> We should keep Sendmail out of the synopsis unless we're also going
>> to mention Postfix.  And people may well not know what AMaViSd or a
>> milter are - we need something a bit more basic:
>>   Description: virus scanner interface for email filtering         
>>>  This package provides a sendmail milter for amavisd-new to work
>>>  with sendmail or Postfix, by use of the AM.PDP protocol.
>> Is it a "sendmail milter" if I use it with Postfix?
>>    This package provides a milter for AMaViSd that works with Sendmail
>>    or Postfix, using the AM.PDP protocol.
> I don't think that mentioning AMaViSd is correct here as the
> project declares itself as amavisd-new and AMaViS ceased
> development about 6 years ago (not even sure there is a AM.PDP
> protocol there) - so shouldn't it be rather amavisd-new?

It seems rather pointless to keep insisting it's the new version
when there's no longer an amavisd-old to confuse it with;
amavisd-new is the only kind of AMaViSd available, and this package
provides a milter for it.  AMaViS never used the name with a final
-d anyway, did it?  (I also notice that the upstream homepage for
amavisd-new is at "http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/";.)

Nonetheless, saying "amavisd-new" here would obviously be completely
true, so change it to that if you prefer.

>>>  Compared to the former implementations, this version makes use of the
>>>  full functionality of amavisd-new, such as the use of spam and virus
>>>  information header fields, mails subjects rewrite, use of address
>>>  extensions and selective recipient removal.
>> This was pretty good already... "instead of" didn't quite work, but
>> nor does "compared to" if you aren't going to hold up a specimen for
>> comparison.  Also, let's have a full stop somewhere.
>>    Replacing the older amavisd-new-milter program, amavisd-milter makes
>>    use of the full functionality of amavisd-new. It supports using spam
>>    and virus information header fields, rewriting message subjects,
>>    adding address extensions, and selectively removing recipients.
> Is the last , correct here?

That's a matter of debate between different English style guides:
I added the comma deliberately in the list above, in line with my
usual policy for d-l-e reviews, but it wouldn't be wrong if you took
it out again.
JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package

Reply to: