On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 07:33:36PM -0400, Jim Wise wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> >i didn't say "conficts" in the sense of cvs.
> >eg. if both of spamd use /etc/spamd.conf, it's a conflict i meant.
> >
> >talking about cvs, don't you know the fact that even simple changes
> >in a manpage involve boring, time consuming merging work?
> >besides, i don't think there're no changes needed to code.
> 
> I've just done this.  spamd is now pfspamd.  spamdb is now pfspamdb.  
> spamd-setup is now pfspamd-setup.  There _were_ no changes required to 
> the code.  Period.
> 

Ok, and please revert this.

spamd is not pf-centric, as was mentioned before by martin.
IIRC it can be used without pf(4).

And this breaks POLA.

I agree that spamd is a bad name, but this is even worse.

-- 
Peter Postma (who thinks spamd should be in pkgsrc, not base)