RFS: mod-spamhaus
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mod-spamhaus". * Package name: mod-spamhaus Version : 0.5-1 Upstream Author : Luca Ercoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/mod-spamhaus/ * License : GPL Section : web It builds these binary packages: libapache2-mod-spamhaus - Apache DNSBL module that deny access to a known bad IP address The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 503395 What's mod_spamhaus === mod_spamhaus is an Apache module that use DNSBL in order to block spam relay via web forms, preventing URL injection, block http DDoS attacks from bots and generally protecting your web service denying access to a known bad IP address. It take advantage of the Spamhaus Block List (SBL) and the Exploits Block List (XBL) querying sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org Spamhaus's DNSBLs are offered as a free public service for low-volume non-commercial use. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mod-spamhaus - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mod-spamhaus/mod-spamhaus_0.5-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Giuseppe Iuculano signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: mod-spamhaus
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mod-spamhaus/mod-spamhaus_0.6-1.dsc A review of your source package: debian/watch should use the standard sf qa redirector, please read the uscan manual page. The upstream source does not contain any copyright information, you might want to ask them to fix that. There is a new upstream version available (0.7). Please ask upstream to fix the compiler warnings: src/mod_spamhaus.c: In function 'core': src/mod_spamhaus.c:256: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast src/mod_spamhaus.c: In function 'num_cached_ip': src/mod_spamhaus.c:358: warning: passing argument 1 of 'atoi' makes pointer from integer without a cast src/mod_spamhaus.c: At top level: src/mod_spamhaus.c:367: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type src/mod_spamhaus.c:368: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type src/mod_spamhaus.c:369: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type src/mod_spamhaus.c:370: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: mod-spamhaus
Paul Wise ha scritto: > A review of your source package: > > debian/watch should use the standard sf qa redirector, please read the > uscan manual page. > > The upstream source does not contain any copyright information, you > might want to ask them to fix that. > > There is a new upstream version available (0.7). > > Please ask upstream to fix the compiler warnings: > > src/mod_spamhaus.c: In function 'core': > src/mod_spamhaus.c:256: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer > without a cast > src/mod_spamhaus.c: In function 'num_cached_ip': > src/mod_spamhaus.c:358: warning: passing argument 1 of 'atoi' makes > pointer from integer without a cast > src/mod_spamhaus.c: At top level: > src/mod_spamhaus.c:367: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type > src/mod_spamhaus.c:368: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type > src/mod_spamhaus.c:369: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type > src/mod_spamhaus.c:370: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type > Upstream uploaded a new tarball with copyright and compiler warnings fixes. I uploaded the new revision on mentors: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mod-spamhaus - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mod-spamhaus/mod-spamhaus_0.7-1.dsc Thanks for your review. Giuseppe. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: mod-spamhaus
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mod-spamhaus/mod-spamhaus_0.7-1.dsc Some more things: Your package description needs some grammar fixes, please ask for a review on debian-l10n-english. You don't specify any specific version the GPL for your packaging, was that intentional? Upstream's license grant is unclear about the GPL version; "either version 3 of the License." doesn't make sense. The ReadMe.txt file only contains information present elsewhere in the package (debian/copyright, debian/control, debian/rules, debian/postinst, debian/conf), I don't think you need to ship it in the .deb. Other than that (and without having tested it) the package looks good. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: mod-spamhaus
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Upstream's license grant is unclear about the GPL version; "either > version 3 of the License." doesn't make sense. In addition, the Makefile and the source code say it is GPL v2 or later. I think upstream should make up their mind about which version of the GPL to use. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: mod-spamhaus
Paul Wise ha scritto: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mod-spamhaus/mod-spamhaus_0.7-1.dsc > > Some more things: > > Your package description needs some grammar fixes, please ask for a > review on debian-l10n-english. Done [0] > > You don't specify any specific version the GPL for your packaging, was > that intentional? Ok, now it is "licensed under the same license as the software itself." > > Upstream's license grant is unclear about the GPL version; "either > version 3 of the License." doesn't make sense. > > The ReadMe.txt file only contains information present elsewhere in the > package (debian/copyright, debian/control, debian/rules, > debian/postinst, debian/conf), I don't think you need to ship it in > the .deb. > > Other than that (and without having tested it) the package looks good. > Fixed and uploaded again on mentors. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2008/11/msg3.html Giuseppe. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: mod-spamhaus
Paul Wise ha scritto:
> Sorry about this, but I just noticed that there is already a DNSBL
> module for apache2 in Debian (libapache2-mod-defensible). Please
> investigate if mod-spamhaus is useful to add despite that.
>
Yes, I know, but I prefer (and I'm using) mod-spamhaus because:
1) I can choose HTTP methods (POST,PUT,...) to block
2) I can have a whitelist
3) I can have a custom error ("Access Denied, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more
information)
Giuseppe.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: mod-spamhaus
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fixed and uploaded again on mentors. Sorry about this, but I just noticed that there is already a DNSBL module for apache2 in Debian (libapache2-mod-defensible). Please investigate if mod-spamhaus is useful to add despite that. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: mod-spamhaus
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, I know, but I prefer (and I'm using) mod-spamhaus because: Fair enough, I've uploaded the package. Thanks for your work, please mail debian-mentors for future uploads and I'll upload if I am able. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: mod-spamhaus
Paul Wise ha scritto: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Yes, I know, but I prefer (and I'm using) mod-spamhaus because: > > Fair enough, I've uploaded the package. > > Thanks for your work, please mail debian-mentors for future uploads > and I'll upload if I am able. > Thank you, Giuseppe. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#503395: RFS: mod-spamhaus
Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Paul Wise ha scritto: > > > > The upstream source does not contain any copyright information, you > > might want to ask them to fix that. > > There is a LICENSE file, isn't it enough? Having the text of a license *accompany* the work isn't any indication that you've been *granted* a license to that work. What is needed is a clear statement of: * What specific legal entity holds copyright in each identifiable part (usually, each separate file) of the work, and in what years that copyright began. Without this, it's not clear at all which parties might hold copyright, or when it will nominally expire. * What license the copyright holder (in each case) explicitly grants in the work to the recipient. Without this, the recipient by default has *none* [0] of the rights held by the copyright holder. These statements (copyright declaration, explicit grant of license) need to be explicit and need to make clear what parts of the work are covered. The recommended way for this to happen is for these statements to be inside a header at the top of every human-readable file; or, if some of the file formats don't allow that, to also have a separate document detailing these statements for all the parts of the work and the work as a whole. [0] (with very limited, jurisdiction-specific exceptions that don't help for the purpose of Debian packaging) -- \“I washed a sock. Then I put it in the dryer. When I took it | `\ out, it was gone.” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#503395: RFS: mod-spamhaus
Paul Wise ha scritto: > > The upstream source does not contain any copyright information, you > might want to ask them to fix that. There is a LICENSE file, isn't it enough? Giuseppe. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#503395: RFS: mod-spamhaus
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a LICENSE file, isn't it enough? License and copyright holder are two different things. Licenses specify what you are allowed to do with the work, the copyright holder information tells you who is giving you a license. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
