Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

[Bob A. <apt...@cy...>]

Hi,

Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
> Karl O. Pinc wrote, On 10/4/09 15:30:
>> On 04/10/2009 07:23:41 AM, Dan Faerch wrote:
>> 
>>> Michal Ludvig wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Well there is one thing - IPv6 handling is still a problem.
>>>> 
>>> I cant check the patch, since im not "IPv6 ready" yet. I have no
>>>  servers running ipv6 and nor experience with it.
>>> 
>>> I no one objects, ill add it to CVS within the next couple of
>>> days.
>>> 
>> It can't be any more broken than it is now. ;-)
>> 
> Indeed. This is why I use the IPv6 code included in this fork: 
> http://apthorpe.cynistar.net/code/sqlgrey/
> 
> It is based on the Net::CIDR module, which makes parsing IPv4 and
> IPv6 addresses much more reliable and easy.
> 
> I receive quite a lot of e-mail delivered over IPv6 and can testify
> it works fine.

Wow - I had no idea anyone was using that; it's less of a fork than just
a reformat and refactoring with perltidy, perlcritic, etc. My guess is
that I added Net::CIDR because I knew someone else had solved the
netblock decipherment issue and I'm all about fobbing code maintenance
off on others ;)

I'm not actively using sqlgrey but I'm willing to revisit my version and
help port useful features into the official (and maintained) version of
the code.

Anymore I'm pretty religious about using perltidy & perlcritic but not
out of slavish adherence to dogma. It's mostly because I'm too lazy to
pay attention to coding style and formatting. This way I can just hack,
fix the perlcritic warnings, and filter the code through perltidy so it
looks sane & standardized. If people don't like it, they can argue with
Damian Conway :)

-- Bob