Nigel Frankcom writes: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:43:00 +0200 (CEST), Dag Wieers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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.