mail/policyd name conflict

Ion-Mihai Tetcu itetcu at
Tue Mar 22 01:03:17 PST 2005

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:49:11 +0100
Anton Berezin <tobez at> 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
> > WWW:
> 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
> 	It implements SPF for postfix, as a policy daemon.
> 	WWW:
> 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 ?

Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list