dkim policy in Fedora

[Miroslav Grepl]

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 at 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 at 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.