FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora SELinux Support

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-09-2011, 01:41 PM
Paul Howarth
 
Default dkim policy in Fedora

Currently, the SELinux policy for dkim in Fedora (at least for F-15 and
Rawhide) is in the milter module, whereas upstream has a separate dkim
module. I'm looking at adding support for opendkim (a fork of
dkim-milter), which has recently been imported to Fedora, and if I send
a patch upstream, it's not going to get pulled into Fedora because
Fedora is using a patched milter module rather than upstream's dkim
module. Is there any reason for this other than it being a historical
thing due to it being in Fedora before upstream?

Paul.
--
selinux mailing list
selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
 
Old 09-12-2011, 01:14 PM
Daniel J Walsh
 
Default dkim policy in Fedora

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/09/2011 09:41 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
> Currently, the SELinux policy for dkim in Fedora (at least for F-15
> and Rawhide) is in the milter module, whereas upstream has a
> separate dkim module. I'm looking at adding support for opendkim (a
> fork of dkim-milter), which has recently been imported to Fedora,
> and if I send a patch upstream, it's not going to get pulled into
> Fedora because Fedora is using a patched milter module rather than
> upstream's dkim module. Is there any reason for this other than it
> being a historical thing due to it being in Fedora before
> upstream?
>
> Paul. -- selinux mailing list selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux

Lets work to get the Upstream and Fedora code merged. I have a
feeling others have worked on the Fedora policy that are using the
milters all the time, so I think our stuff is good.

dgrift and mgrepl would no better then I.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk5uBa0ACgkQrlYvE4MpobPe6QCgifoGmjZVnB wtllkH7idxmfhB
3tYAoMf2f16E7q2Q9hVMA+TdychfS8mF
=CKkz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
selinux mailing list
selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
 
Old 09-12-2011, 02:54 PM
Paul Howarth
 
Default dkim policy in Fedora

On 09/12/2011 02:14 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> On 09/09/2011 09:41 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
>> Currently, the SELinux policy for dkim in Fedora (at least for F-15
>> and Rawhide) is in the milter module, whereas upstream has a
>> separate dkim module. I'm looking at adding support for opendkim (a
>> fork of dkim-milter), which has recently been imported to Fedora,
>> and if I send a patch upstream, it's not going to get pulled into
>> Fedora because Fedora is using a patched milter module rather than
>> upstream's dkim module. Is there any reason for this other than it
>> being a historical thing due to it being in Fedora before
>> upstream?
>>
>> Paul. -- selinux mailing list selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
>
> Lets work to get the Upstream and Fedora code merged. I have a
> feeling others have worked on the Fedora policy that are using the
> milters all the time, so I think our stuff is good.
>
> dgrift and mgrepl would no better then I.

Shouldn't be a big job anyway.

I'd just posted (upstream) a patch adding support for opendkim, which
was recently introduced in Fedora, and I'd like to get that merged too.

Paul.
--
selinux mailing list
selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
 
Old 09-13-2011, 05:31 AM
Miroslav Grepl
 
Default dkim policy in Fedora

On 09/12/2011 04:54 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On 09/12/2011 02:14 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> On 09/09/2011 09:41 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
>>> Currently, the SELinux policy for dkim in Fedora (at least for F-15
>>> and Rawhide) is in the milter module, whereas upstream has a
>>> separate dkim module. I'm looking at adding support for opendkim (a
>>> fork of dkim-milter), which has recently been imported to Fedora,
>>> and if I send a patch upstream, it's not going to get pulled into
>>> Fedora because Fedora is using a patched milter module rather than
>>> upstream's dkim module. Is there any reason for this other than it
>>> being a historical thing due to it being in Fedora before
>>> upstream?
>>>
>>> Paul. -- selinux mailing list selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
>> Lets work to get the Upstream and Fedora code merged. I have a
>> feeling others have worked on the Fedora policy that are using the
>> milters all the time, so I think our stuff is good.
>>
>> dgrift and mgrepl would no better then I.
> Shouldn't be a big job anyway.
>
> I'd just posted (upstream) a patch adding support for opendkim, which
> was recently introduced in Fedora, and I'd like to get that merged too.
>
> Paul.
> --
> selinux mailing list
> selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
Could you open a new bug on Fedora too. And we should take care to get
the Upstream and Fedora code merged as Dan said.
--
selinux mailing list
selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
 
Old 09-13-2011, 03:12 PM
Paul Howarth
 
Default dkim policy in Fedora

On 09/13/2011 06:31 AM, Miroslav Grepl wrote:
> On 09/12/2011 04:54 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
>> On 09/12/2011 02:14 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2011 09:41 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
>>>> Currently, the SELinux policy for dkim in Fedora (at least for F-15
>>>> and Rawhide) is in the milter module, whereas upstream has a
>>>> separate dkim module. I'm looking at adding support for opendkim (a
>>>> fork of dkim-milter), which has recently been imported to Fedora,
>>>> and if I send a patch upstream, it's not going to get pulled into
>>>> Fedora because Fedora is using a patched milter module rather than
>>>> upstream's dkim module. Is there any reason for this other than it
>>>> being a historical thing due to it being in Fedora before
>>>> upstream?
>>>>
>>>> Paul. -- selinux mailing list selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
>>> Lets work to get the Upstream and Fedora code merged. I have a
>>> feeling others have worked on the Fedora policy that are using the
>>> milters all the time, so I think our stuff is good.
>>>
>>> dgrift and mgrepl would no better then I.
>> Shouldn't be a big job anyway.
>>
>> I'd just posted (upstream) a patch adding support for opendkim, which
>> was recently introduced in Fedora, and I'd like to get that merged too.
>>
>> Paul.
>> --
>> selinux mailing list
>> selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
> Could you open a new bug on Fedora too. And we should take care to get
> the Upstream and Fedora code merged as Dan said.

Done:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737992

Cheers, Paul.

--
selinux mailing list
selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:20 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org