procmail forwarding may cause mail loops

Procmail forwarding recipes created by Ingo contain no prote

Fri, 17 Feb 2006 04:57:06 +0000

Procmail forwarding recipes created by Ingo contain no protecting against mail loops if the forwarded-to address is bad or if it forwards back to this address. The attached patch should fix the problem. The patch still has one bug, described in the comments. I'm no procmail expert, but we've been running this patch for a few months with no complaints.

Ben, if you have the time to take a quick look at the patch,

Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:44:16 +0000

Ben, if you have the time to take a quick look at the patch, I can take care of committing it.

I am using it for a few weeks with no problems, at least I h

Thu, 30 Mar 2006 09:18:28 +0000

I am using it for a few weeks with no problems, at least I have no more message looping since I patched with this, so thanks a lot for this patch and I vote to make it a part of official code.

Looks good to me.

Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:28:18 +0000

Looks good to me.

The comments say "Code taken from pm-lib.sourceforge.net." W

Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:49:02 +0000

The comments say "Code taken from pm-lib.sourceforge.net." What exactly does this mean?

> The comments say "Code taken from pm-lib.sourceforge.net."

Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:14:59 +0000

> The comments say "Code taken from pm-lib.sourceforge.net." What > exactly does this mean? I needed the "from" address, to pass as the -f option to sendmail. pm-lib.sourceforge.net contains a procmail snippet for determining the from address without making an extra call to formail, so I used it. (This makes up the 13 lines or so of code that set OUTPUT.) I just realized that pm-lib is GPL'ed and Horde is LGPL'ed, so maybe it wasn't appropriate to do this; if you'd like me to rework the patch or contact pm-lib's author for permission, please let me know. (Sorry, I'm not very familiar with the process for including code snippets from one open source project in another.)

It's even worse because Ingo is under the Apache license. Ye

Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:22:52 +0000

It's even worse because Ingo is under the Apache license. Yes, please ask the author or find a different solution. Attached is my cleaned up version of you patch with several coding standards fixes. Please continue from there.

From further discussion by mail: Hi Josh, Jari, Zitat

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:30:13 +0000

From further discussion by mail: Hi Josh, Jari, Zitat von Josh Kelley : > I've been in contact with the author of pm-lib regarding using his > code as part of the fix for http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/?id=3502. > Here's his latest reply. As the Apache 2.x license is compatible with > the GPL (or at least will be once GPL 3 is released), he had presented > using that as one possible solution to the licensing discrepancy; you > can read the rest of the dialog below. > > I think that we need input from the Horde developers at this point, so > I'm forwarding to you. > > Josh Kelley > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jari Aalto > Date: Apr 4, 2006 1:16 PM > Subject: Re: Licensing question - sharing Apache and GPL code > (pm-lib/Ingo/Horde) > To: Josh Kelley > > > | On 4/4/06, Jari Aalto wrote: > | > | If my understanding of the incompatibilities is correct, then may I > | > | have permission to include some pm-lib code, under section 10 of the > | > | the GPL? > | > > | > You have my permission, but the problem is that it would not be > | > legally valid. I propose the following (Ingo/Horde people CC'd). > | > | Why would it not be legally valid? As the author of pm-lib, you may > | choose to license your code however you wish and make it available > | under separate two licenses if you wish. Section 10 of the GPL > | specifically permits authors of GPL'ed code to make the code available > | for free software projects not under the GPL if they so desire. > > I explained too tersely. I meant that in the light of the license > parties' undertanding (Apache foundation and FSF), the Apache 1.x > license and GPL does not seem to be compatible. > > As for multiple licensing, which I have to politely decline, I have my > reservations, because they easily adds complexity that I'm unable to > handle and properly comprehend. I feel multiple licensing is for > Organizations and foundations that have the resources to know what > they are doing. The GPL in my view has advantage of being tested in > court, whereas the other licenses to my knowledge have not yet. > > When I referred to "it would not be legally valid", I meant: > > - I can give written permission to copy the code to > other projects. > - but whether it would be legally okay, I do not know. What if > the code is again distributed to other projects and with > BSD license? (I'm would not be in favor of BSD type commercial/closed/ > allowance licenses). > > The licensing issues are complex matter and I would rather suggest to > make an informed decision: > > - practical; just take the code and quote me > in the project files: "The Ingo project > has the permission to use Procmail Library code > under Apache licence v 1.x or any later version. > Permission obtained 2006-04-04 from Author Jari Aalto." This seems like the easiest way to go. We are talking about less then ten lines of procmail recipe code (iirc) which is not really rocket science. This would of course be a completely different story if we were about to include large parts of, or the complete pm-lib. And it's similar to how we did handle inclusion of other third party code or algorithms with written permission by the author. > I can pgp sign the wording as needed. You can also suggest wording > that we can agree on. > > - Long route; take the issue to the development team > (upstream; Ingo, Horde devel) and have a discussion to > persuate them to move to Apache 2.x licence or have them > add wording "Apache 1.x lincence or at your option > any later version" as GPL does. This seems impratical. I'm not sure if this an issue of GPL only or with any licence like ASL here. But since contributors don't explicitely hand the copyright over to the Horde Project (which doesn't exist as a legal entity anyway), we probably can't simply change the licence without the permission of each single contributor. Jan.

We received permission, so it should be okay to proceed with

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:58:33 +0000

We received permission, so it should be okay to proceed with the current patch. From further discussion by mail: From: Jari Aalto To: Josh Kelley Date: Apr 17, 2006 9:49 AM Subject: Re: Licensing question - sharing Apache and GPL code (pm-lib/Ingo/Horde) | On 4/4/06, Jari Aalto wrote: | > The licensing issues are complex matter and I would rather suggest to | > make an informed decision: | > | > - practical; just take the code and quote me | > in the project files: "The Ingo project | > has the permission to use Procmail Library code | > under Apache licence v 1.x or any later version. | > Permission obtained 2006-04-04 from Author Jari Aalto." | | Since the Horde developers have said that they prefer this approach, | is it okay if we proceed with it? | | Thank you for all of your time spent on this. Sure, please go ahead, Jari

OK, can you please update my version of the patch to include

Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:53:51 +0000

OK, can you please update my version of the patch to include the source of the code and the permission to redistribute it in the comments?

Are you going to update the patch?

Tue, 23 May 2006 04:25:02 +0000

Are you going to update the patch?

Here's the patch, finally. Is this format okay? Sorry it

Tue, 23 May 2006 15:31:43 +0000

Here's the patch, finally. Is this format okay? Sorry it took me so long to take care of this.

Perfect.

Tue, 23 May 2006 15:49:45 +0000

Perfect.

Committed, thanks!

Tue, 23 May 2006 19:22:47 +0000

Committed, thanks!