Bug#564576: Package completely fails to support IPv6
clone 640495 -1 reassign -1 ftp.debian.org retitle -1 RM: spfmilter -- RoM; unmaintained upstream, dep to be dropped from sid severity -1 normal thanks Hi Mike, On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 05:37:35PM -0800, Mike Markley wrote: > I did reply -- only I forgot to actually send it. Oops. oops, ok. :) > No disagreement from here; the reply I never sent is below: > > It's not really maintained upstream anymore. An attempt to port it to > libsfp2 was made a few years ago, but it was a much older version of > libspf2 (with big API differences) and it was never stable. > > I don't have the cycles to port it; in addition, spf-milter-python appears > to be a suitably functional replacement. Given those facts, I suppose > dropping it is for the best. Ok, thanks! Kind regards and thanks for the reply, Philipp Kern -- .''`. Philipp KernDebian Developer : :' : http://philkern.de Stable Release Manager `. `' xmpp:p...@0x539.de Wanna-Build Admin `-finger pkern/k...@db.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#564576: Package completely fails to support IPv6
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 02:07:14PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > clone 564576 -1 > reassign -1 ftp.debian.org > retitle -1 RM: libspf -- RoQA; unmaintained, buggy > severity -1 normal > thanks > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 12:05:55PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:56:32AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > I replied directly, rather than to the bug by mistake. > > > > > > I will contact the maintainers of the two rdepends (spfmilter and > > > whitelister) > > > to see if they will fix libspf0, port their packages to libspf2 (which > > > does > > > support IPv6), or have them removed. > > > > Given that the orphan bug is already quite old (2007, #433108) and that it > > causes data loss, let's get rid of it. Filing bugs against its reverse > > dependencies because the library is going away. > > > > I'll try to remember to ask for its removal in a few weeks and upgrade those > > bugs to serious then. > > There's only one rdep left (spfmilter) where the maintainer did not > reply. So let's get rid of libspf. I did reply -- only I forgot to actually send it. Oops. No disagreement from here; the reply I never sent is below: It's not really maintained upstream anymore. An attempt to port it to libsfp2 was made a few years ago, but it was a much older version of libspf2 (with big API differences) and it was never stable. I don't have the cycles to port it; in addition, spf-milter-python appears to be a suitably functional replacement. Given those facts, I suppose dropping it is for the best. -- Mike Markley -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#564576: Package completely fails to support IPv6
clone 564576 -1 reassign -1 ftp.debian.org retitle -1 RM: libspf -- RoQA; unmaintained, buggy severity -1 normal thanks On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 12:05:55PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:56:32AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I replied directly, rather than to the bug by mistake. > > > > I will contact the maintainers of the two rdepends (spfmilter and > > whitelister) > > to see if they will fix libspf0, port their packages to libspf2 (which does > > support IPv6), or have them removed. > > Given that the orphan bug is already quite old (2007, #433108) and that it > causes data loss, let's get rid of it. Filing bugs against its reverse > dependencies because the library is going away. > > I'll try to remember to ask for its removal in a few weeks and upgrade those > bugs to serious then. There's only one rdep left (spfmilter) where the maintainer did not reply. So let's get rid of libspf. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#640495: Bug#564576: Package completely fails to support IPv6
Mike, On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 07:06:10PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:16:20PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > Upgrading now. I'll ask for libspf0's removal at the end of the > > month. > You can remove whitelsiter, I don't maintain (upstream) it anymore. any opinion about spfmilter? Can it be fixed? Should it go? Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#640496: Bug#564576: Package completely fails to support IPv6
retitle 640496 RM: whitelister -- ROM; unmaintained upstream, obsolete reassign 640496 ftp.debian.org thanks Hi Pierre, On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 07:06:10PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > You can remove whitelsiter, I don't maintain (upstream) it anymore. then let's do that. ;) Kind regards and thanks for your reply! Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#640495: Bug#564576: Package completely fails to support IPv6
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:16:20PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > severity 640496 serious > severity 640495 serious > thanks > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 12:05:55PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:56:32AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > I replied directly, rather than to the bug by mistake. > > > > > > I will contact the maintainers of the two rdepends (spfmilter and > > > whitelister) > > > to see if they will fix libspf0, port their packages to libspf2 (which > > > does > > > support IPv6), or have them removed. > > > > Given that the orphan bug is already quite old (2007, #433108) and that it > > causes data loss, let's get rid of it. Filing bugs against its reverse > > dependencies because the library is going away. > > > > I'll try to remember to ask for its removal in a few weeks and upgrade those > > bugs to serious then. > > Upgrading now. I'll ask for libspf0's removal at the end of the > month. > > Kind regards > Philipp Kern > > You can remove whitelsiter, I don't maintain (upstream) it anymore. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#640495: Bug#564576: Package completely fails to support IPv6
severity 640496 serious severity 640495 serious thanks On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 12:05:55PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:56:32AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I replied directly, rather than to the bug by mistake. > > > > I will contact the maintainers of the two rdepends (spfmilter and > > whitelister) > > to see if they will fix libspf0, port their packages to libspf2 (which does > > support IPv6), or have them removed. > > Given that the orphan bug is already quite old (2007, #433108) and that it > causes data loss, let's get rid of it. Filing bugs against its reverse > dependencies because the library is going away. > > I'll try to remember to ask for its removal in a few weeks and upgrade those > bugs to serious then. Upgrading now. I'll ask for libspf0's removal at the end of the month. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#564576: Package completely fails to support IPv6
clone 564576 -1 clone 564576 -2 reassign -1 spfmilter severity -1 important retitle -1 libspf0 going away reassign -2 whitelister severity -2 important retitle -2 libspf0 going away On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:56:32AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I replied directly, rather than to the bug by mistake. > > I will contact the maintainers of the two rdepends (spfmilter and > whitelister) > to see if they will fix libspf0, port their packages to libspf2 (which does > support IPv6), or have them removed. Given that the orphan bug is already quite old (2007, #433108) and that it causes data loss, let's get rid of it. Filing bugs against its reverse dependencies because the library is going away. I'll try to remember to ask for its removal in a few weeks and upgrade those bugs to serious then. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#564576: Package completely fails to support IPv6
Also, I think it does warrant RC severity due to dataloss potential, not due to release goals. Wheezy will be released in 1.5 - 2 years and supported until a year after Wheezy +1. That means 4 - 5 years. In that time frame I think it's highly likely that incorrectly rejecting mail due to lack of IPv6 support (without even any warning that's why it's doing it) will result in significant data loss. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#564576: Package completely fails to support IPv6
I replied directly, rather than to the bug by mistake. I will contact the maintainers of the two rdepends (spfmilter and whitelister) to see if they will fix libspf0, port their packages to libspf2 (which does support IPv6), or have them removed. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#564576: Package completely fails to support IPv6
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 15:00, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I think this should be RC for Wheezy as libspf appears to completely lack IPv6 > support. why? IPv6 support is a release goal for wheezy, and RG does not warrant a RC severity: please fix it. [1] http://release.debian.org/wheezy/goals.txt Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#564576: Package completely fails to support IPv6
I think this should be RC for Wheezy as libspf appears to completely lack IPv6 support. $ spfqtool -i 2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2 -s sc...@mailout03.controlledmail.com -h mailout03.controlledmail.com SPF short result: fail SPF verbose result: policy result: [fail] from rule [-all] RFC2822 header: Received-SPF: fail (mailout03.controlledmail.com: domain of sc...@mailout03.controlledmail.com does not designate 2607:f0d0:3001:a as permitted sender) receiver=mailout03.controlledmail.com; client_ip=2607:f0d0:3001:a; envelope-from=sc...@mailout03.controlledmail.com; It seems to fail to handle IPv6 IP addresses at all, as a result, legitimate mail sent from IPv6 addresses could be rejected (data loss). Scott K signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
