mail/policyd name conflict

[Kirill Ponomarew]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:03:03AM +0200, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:49:11 +0100
> Anton Berezin <tobez at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > We have a PR (ports/79070) for a new port named mail/policyd, which does
> > the following:
> > 
> > > Policyd is an anti-spam plugin for Postfix (written in C) that does
> > > greylisting, sender (envelope or SASL) based throttling (on messages
> > > and/or volume per defined time unit) and Spamtrap monitoring /
> > > blacklisting.
> > > 
> > > Author:	cami at mweb.co.za
> > > WWW:	http://policyd.sourceforge.net/
> > 
> > clsung brought to my attention that we in fact already have a
> > mail/policyd port.  I would imagine that typically in this situation
> > this would mean tough luck for the newer submission.  In this instance,
> > however, it looks like the "policyd" name really suits the new port
> > better than the existing one, which is:
> > 
> > 	This is a C port of Meng Wong's policyd for Postfix. The original
> > 	code is available from http://spf.pobox.com/postfix-policyd.txt.
> > 	It implements SPF for postfix, as a policy daemon.
> > 
> > 	WWW: http://www.libspf2.org/
> > 
> > So, while both ports use postfix'es policy mechanism, the new port is
> > much broader in scope.
> > 
> > So I'd like to suggest to rename the existing mail/policyd to
> > mail/policyd-spf, for example.
> 
> So a repo for his one.
> 
> >  It might be a good idea to rename the new port to mail/policyd-somethingelse
> > anyway, if we can come up with a sufficiently descriptive (and short!)
> > "somethingelse" part.
> 
> Supposing is w/o "something" part, what will this do to portversion (is
> it going to go backwards ?) and how will we protect users from self
> shooting by portupgrading from the old one to the new one w/o noticing ?

ports/MOVED

-Kirill