SRPM Name or Url: http://www.coker.com.au/postgrey/ Description: Postgrey is a Postfix policy server implementing greylisting. When a request for delivery of a mail is received by Postfix via SMTP, the triplet CLIENT_IP / SENDER / RECIPIENT is built. If it is the first time that this triplet is seen, or if the triplet was first seen less than 5 minutes, then the mail gets rejected with a temporary error. Hopefully spammers or viruses will not try again later, as it is however required per RFC.
Ah, I was wondering when someone would submit a Postfix policy service :-). I'll give this a spin (I personally use Cami's policyd, more through familiarity than anything else). Small nit - when submitting these packages can the .spec be split out of the source package and get it's own URL in the submission / update? It makes life a little simpler for the reviewer that wants to check from scratch. Cheers.
NEEDSWORK Review for release 1: * RPM name is OK * Source postgrey-1.24.tar.gz is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock (FC4) * File list of postgrey looks OK * Hasn't made my test instance explode. Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) - Noticed some uses of %{_var} vs. %{_localstatedir} in there.. * rpmlint of postgrey: rpmlint of postgrey-1.24-1.noarch.rpm E: postgrey zero-length /etc/postgrey/postgrey_whitelist_clients.local - %ghost this and make the user add it themselves once they've RTFM, IMO E: postgrey non-standard-gid /var/run/postgrey postfix E: postgrey non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/postgrey 0750 E: postgrey non-standard-uid /var/lib/postgrey postgrey E: postgrey non-standard-gid /var/lib/postgrey postgrey E: postgrey non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/postgrey 0750 - These can be ignored IMHO W: postgrey dangerous-command-in-%post chown - Do it via %attr instead if you have to, I get the jitters when I see this. W: postgrey service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/postgrey - Please don't give explosives to newbies. :-) * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) - Yank a copy from an appropriate site, even as a SourceX if you want, Conversely, ask upstream to put it in the tarball. * Missing dependancy on service for %postun (package initscripts) * Missing dependancy on service for %preun (package initscripts) * Missing dependancy on chkconfig for %post (package chkconfig) * Missing dependancy on chkconfig for %preun (package chkconfig) - The Requires and pre/post install scriptlets need fixing. - Drop the PreReq entirely. Is this a holdover from MDK or something else? - Requires: postfix >= 2.1.0 (no policy server capability in older versions AFAIK. Again, no explosives for the newbs.) - For Requires(%post) etc, use the defaults from the Services part of http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets Notes: Other blockers: - Don't use %define for Name/Version/Release, use them directly. It also makes the spec little cleaner. If possible avoid %defines at all unless you really need them. - Use install rather than mkdir/cp for moving files around and creating your extra dirs. "Would be nice if..." - Any reason to move the defaults around? - upstream likes it's configs and spool in /etc/postfix & $postfix_spooldir respectively. - "Starting/Stopping $prog" in the init file looks a little ugly, when compared to other init files (not that most sysadmins *care*, but it stuck out for me :-)) Perhaps a simple "Starting/Stopping Postgrey:" would suffice? - Toss a %{?dist} in Release as good practice and to make distro upgrades simpler and cleaner. Stuff I liked: - Generated manpages.
Could we give a spin to this?
Is it a dead review?
I'm interested in seeing this in Extras as well. It looks like http://www.coker.com.au/postgrey/ is no longer available, though, so I took another stab at the package. I based the work on Farkas Levente's work from http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/, but made fairly extensive changes to the spec file to bring it more in line with my reading of the wiki and Michael's comments above. I've made the files available here: http://woogie.net/rpms/postgrey.spec http://woogie.net/rpms/postgrey-1.27-1.src.rpm I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks Mike
/me is very interested in seing this in extras as well - I'll give the packages as whirl and report my findings, if any! :o)
AFAIKT, this package is an excellent candicate for extras (note that i'm not normally doing reviews for extras so something may still be needed). The package builds and installs just fine - creates a daemon useraccount and add's postgrey with chkconfig --add for easy setup. One line change to postfix main.cf and we're off. Great job!
Seems to be about that time again: "Is this dead or merely comatose?" Last post from the assigned party was about nine months ago. This would be very nice to have as an extra rather than manually installing/updating. This is a tool which significantly reduces spam -- making admins lives easier and Fedora/Redhat look more appealing. It seems that rcoker has removed the copy he placed on his personal site, but the official home can be found here: http://isg.ee.ethz.ch/tools/postgrey/ Current assigned owner: Please either move on this, re-assign to someone with enough cycles available, or kill the bug report so another can be submitted. Nine months -- we're talking about a small and fairly functional package -- not a baby. ;)
BTW- I'm not trying to insult the efforts of Mike and Thomas -- thanks to both of you for continuing to work on this. I'm just concerned because the bug appears to be off the radar of the current owner...
Guys, the package submitter has not responded since 2006-02-19, so don't wait forever. If you review and approve a competing package, just do it. Nowhere is written that one stalled review blocks other more active package submissions. No mercy. Russell probably is busy and could still join as a co-maintainer later.
Count me on this (I already installed it on my mail server). So, assuming Russel is too busy to bring it on, is anyone willing to take over maintainership?
I somehow managed to miss this review (note for myself : think about not only looking in CVS but also in Bugzilla), and submitted my own postgrey package for review in bug #218020. From here, either : - Have someone review my package, and have this request closed. - Have someone take over this request, someone else review it, and mine closed.
Setting this request to closed (inactivity). Some of the ideas in Russ' spec would be good to roll into a newer package (especially the SELinux stuff, on reflection - I'm more familiar with it now than I was when this was first lodged)
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 218020 ***