[users] Clash of 2 SPF packages

[Michael Mansour]

Hi Hugo,

> >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Michael Mansour wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I need both Mail::SPF and Mail::SPF::Query for sa-update to work properly.
> >>>> (sa-update is part of spamassassin.)
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure where you got this information from but it is completely
> >>> incorrect. I use sa-update and do not require both the packages you're
> >>> referring to, as a matter of fact, SpamAssassin themselves only advise
you to
> >>> use the perl-Mail-SPF (Mail::SPF) package since it follows the current
> >>> reference implementation RFC 4408, which Mail::SPF::Query does not.
> >>>
> >>> You can visit the SpamAssassin website for those details.
> >>>
> >>> In summary, only install perl-Mail-SPF from rpmforge and do not install
> >>> perl-Mail-SPF-Query.
> >>
> >> So sa-update as packaged in spamassassin is broken?
> >
> > Not at all, when you run:
> >
> > spamassassin -D --lint
> >
> > you'll see the same "require failed" message, yet that doesn't mean it's
> > broken and it doesn't mean you have to install it.
> 
> In my vocabulary the words REQUIRE (in itself) and MUST (as in RFC 
> usage) specify something which is not optional.
> 
> If a program states a requirement for 2 mutaly exclusive modules 
> then the program is not correct. In fact the term broken applies 
> here in my view.
> 
> If either of them does the job it should detect this and be content 
> instead of stating that a requirement failed.

This was also discussed in the spamassassin mailing lists and your argument
shouldn't really be with me but with the SA developers. Feel free to raise it
with them (as another guy did there).

I actually agree with your argument, but they obviously don't.

Regards,

Michael.

> Hugo.