On 05/13/2014 01:17 PM, Christian Rohmann wrote:
Hello Nigel,
On 12.05.2014 16:11, Nigel Kukard wrote:
This is actually a very good point. We do need different CIDR's for both.
Does anyone else have anything to add, or ideas on how you want it
implemented?
This is a very good idea and absolutely necessary. Currently this can be
done by using two greylisting policies. One with source "0.0.0.0/0"
matching only IPv4 adresses and one with source "::/0" to match only
IPv6 addresses. I am referring to now this worked on git commit 8b1b6fae
from August 2011. I believe though that with a more current version the
way IPv6 addresses are matched has changed a little.
I'm certainly willing to support this as a workaround and if it doesn't
work, just give me your config and I'll see what I can do.
Please have a look at my post "[policyd-users] Why not release a 2.1?",
http://lists.policyd.org/pipermail/users_lists.policyd.org/2011-October/003556.html,
from 2011 again.
The biggest change which is a core fundamental is redefining message
count vs. recipient count. I've not gotten around to doing this yet. I
believe this is the only real core change preventing a RC or Beta.
I generally have a team of developers behind me, but due to some changes
over the past 1-3 years, development has slowed down due to alot of
training and experience that the new guys need before they can work on
this code. Just the past week I have gotten a new team together of
developers with 5-10 years of experience each and hopefully we should
see some progress soon.
That being said .... some of my staff have already moved most of the
site over to the wiki, and the main site should be redone in the next
3-6 months to be more inline with an opensource project and offer a wide
range of other services to make lives easier.
Nigel you created a nice piece of policy software. But please consider
releasing 2.1, even as something clearly marked "beta" or "rc".
I believe I understand that you only want to release something you are
truly happy with. But postponing the release of anything 2.1.x for such
a long time will not help in getting there.
I certainly agree, but unfortunately its a result of circumstance :)
PolicyD is within my top 3 projects right now.
a) More and more people, me included, are using IPv6 and therefore use
shapshots or something off git. This makes it impossible for you to find
and debug a common current version. I'd rather see something beta be
released and that very version is then tested by many people to get it
solid and stable.
Agreed.
b) Linux Distros (Debian i.e.) will otherwise not include 2.1 ever and
this means again less users using a current state of policydv2.
Policyd v2 has however been dropped from Debian due to what appears to
be issues with the packaging.
I have staff working on addressing all the issues which were mentioned
and I'll be taking the issue up with a sponsor to get it back in.
We do have our own .deb though.
Again, just my worthless 2 cents.
But I very much like your software and would love to see it live on,
long and prosper.
Thanks Christian.
-N
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.policyd.org/mailman/listinfo/users_lists.policyd.org
