Re: [users] Clash of 2 SPF packages

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

Nigel Frankcom writes:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:43:00 +0200 (CEST), Dag Wieers <da...@wieers.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Hugo van der Kooij wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Dag Wieers wrote:
> >>
> >> > That said, I wouldn't mind removing spfquery from one of the packages in
> >> > order to allow both packages to be co-installed. I would prefer to remove
> >> > it from perl-Mail-SPF-Query. Anyone minds ?
> >>
> >> Isn't that counter intuitive? The package name after all suggests .... SPF
> >> Query?
> >
> >Right, but the tool in perl-Mail-SPF-Query is from february 2006, while
> >the one from perl-Mail-SPF is from may 2007.
> >
> >Besides the name is not always the best indication. At least perl-Mail-SPF
> >is a more correct and complete implementation and therefor is more likely
> >to provide better results.
> >
> >I still ship spfquery and spfd from perl-Mail-SPF-Query, but in
> >/usr/share/doc/ instead.
> 
> I'd agree with the removal of  perl-Mail-SPF-Query, as has been
> pointed out to me by Michael Mansour... "since it's already been
> announced by the author that it will _never_ be updated again, since
> as mentioned earlier, Mail::SPF follows RFC and should be migrated to
> by anyone using Mail::SPF::Query."
> 
> This is cross posted to the SA list to see what comment it brings from
> there. Hopefully some of the SA admins are on this list and I won't
> have to re-cover the entire thread :-D

well, assuming you're shipping SpamAssassin 3.2.x nowadays, we prefer
Mail::SPF, so go for it ;)

--j.