[opendmarc-dev] OpenDMARC 1.3.2.Beta1 available

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, Juri Haberland wrote:
>> I was expecting to see:
>>
>>         /*
>>         * we don't care at this point if it is ipv6 or ipv4
>>         */
>>        SPF_request_set_ipv4_str(spfctx->spf_request, ip_address);
>>        SPF_request_set_ipv6_str(spfctx->spf_request, ip_address);
>>        return 0;

I don't recall what happened here.  I imagine I tried to apply the patch 
but it didn't work locally, and I mis-edited this.  Apologies.

> Furthermore the commit that should fix #187 misses the compile fix and 
> the fix for the differing log messages (colon vs. no colon)  :(
>
> Murray, please do us a favor and apply the patches that we provide as-is.

Juri,

That's always what I try to do, especially if the patch matches current 
coding style and is clearly understandable by me.  I'm sure you realize 
that the majority of the patches that get submitted are applied directly 
without difficulty.

As I'm also sure you realize, I'm ultimately responsible for this code, so 
I need to understand the problem and the proposed solution.  If I don't, I 
must either reject the request until I do, or make an attempt at a better 
solution.  Sometimes, I realize, that doesn't work out.  It's unfortunate 
when that's the case, but please don't leap to the conclusion that there's 
malice or incompetence in play here.

> If you feel they do something in a way that you don't like, alter it 
> after applying the patch. The way you do it now you introduce new 
> errors. The code part that is touched by #187 is now in need of a third 
> patch because you did not apply the first and the second one as-is.

So rather than being frustrated, help me out here: What's the new issue 
with #187?

> Murray, no offense, but I'm pulling my hair out about this :-/

I understand, but I'm effectively a volunteer here.  Support will get 
everyone further than frustration.

-MSK