How to construct this port?

[Nils Vogels]

Chuck Swiger wrote on 28-12-2006 20:20:
> Ion-Mihai IOnut Tetcu wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:53:34 -0500
>> Chuck Swiger <cswiger at mac.com> wrote:
>>> However, sometimes mail systems go down or block traffic for whatever
>>> reason: postmaster's job is a thankless task, and this was true even
>>> before spam and viral email appeared.  Nowadays, it's harder to get
>>> things mostly right (nevermind "perfect"), so postmasters make
>>> imperfect decisions because they are faced with undesirable tradeoffs.
>>
>> Indeed :-(
>>
>> However banning a hole country isn't a tradeoff in my book, it's just
>> plain [inset_the_word_here]. And sin[c]e it's giving a 5XX code there's
>> really no way to reach the person in question.
>
> I agree that blocking a whole country is a mistake.  Short of posting
> to the mailing list, there's no way to reach whoever it is.
>
> Although I've CC:ed him on the thread.
The country-blocks have been in my mail config for ages, and I didn't
think of them as I decided to become port maintainer. I understand that
it is important as a port maintainer to answer user questions on the
port, and so I have, at the moment the blocks became apparent and a
nuisance, removed them.

Looks like im going to turn postgrey after all :-)
>>> It has not been my observation that insisting people not make any
>>> mistakes commonly results in fewer mistakes being made, or much less,
>>> in zero mistakes being made.  :-)  Rather than try to insist they
>>> "are not allowed" to do something, I'd prefer to let people make
>>> their own decisions and learn which ones are mistakes.  YMMV....
>>
>> The problem is that, IMHO, this kind of rejecting affects us all as I
>> think that being a port maintainer implies receiving and replying to
>> users' email.
>
> Certainly true.
>
> People doing stuff with FreeBSD ought to whitelist @freebsd.org in
> particular; that would make committers lives easier.  But email and
> even Internet access are not completely reliable; people go away on
> vacations sometimes, for a timely example.  (Merry Christmas/holidays
> all.  :-)
Ha, good idea!
Implemented ... :-)
(And a Happy Holidays to you too!)

> For a maintainer timeout to be useful, there needs to be a pending PR
> and/or someone else willing to be more accessible.  Update the current
> PR with the bounce and set responsible to Nivo, committing the change
> or not as you feel best; or file a new PR listing another maintainer
> if one is available and wait for the standard timeout period pending
> resolution by the hat-wearing demigods known as portmgr at .
Apart from me thinking it may be a bit much to go for maintainer switch
right away due to a restrictive mail config, what PR are we talking
about now, so that I can have a look into it ;)

Greetings,

Nils