From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tremer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] New package: IPTraffic 0.8.2 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:01:18 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6636240157814429973==" List-Id: --===============6636240157814429973== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Frank, We have a policy to not take public conversations private: https://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/contact It is under "Never make a public conversation private=E2=80=9D and it is ther= e because sometimes mail user agents do this because of bad UI, and sometimes= there are other reasons. -Michael > On 25 Jan 2021, at 20:58, Frank Mainz wrote: >=20 > Michael, > I had not answered without reason only privately. > Throw away the AddOn. Forget it. >=20 > unfortunately you can't unsubscribe with a simple "unsubscibe". >=20 > What is a spam filter for. >=20 > Am Montag, den 25.01.2021, 20:48 +0000 schrieb Michael Tremer: >> Hello Frank, >>=20 >>> On 25 Jan 2021, at 20:22, Frank Mainz >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>> Am Montag, den 25.01.2021, 20:05 +0000 schrieb Michael Tremer: >>>> Hi Frank, >>>>=20 >>>> Thank you for your email, but it didn=E2=80=99t answer any of my >>>> questions. >>>>=20 >>>> I wasn=E2=80=99t aware of the wiki pages, but I had a look at it. >>>>=20 >>>> The questions from my previous email remain though. I do not >>>> think a >>>> single one was answered. >>>=20 >>> That is not my problem. >>=20 >> Okay, I am sorry, but I would have to vote to reject this patch then. >>=20 >> It is very important that we review all code that is going into the >> distribution and that we have a reason that it is there. Code that is >> redundant, not needed and unmaintained is a potential security >> problem. I am sure this is very easy to understand. >>=20 >> Also, you can read here what it takes to get your patches into the >> distribution: >>=20 >> https://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/submit-patches >>=20 >> This is not there for our own entertainment. It is a tested and tuned >> process which guarantees that IPFire is a product of very high >> quality. >>=20 >>>>> On 25 Jan 2021, at 19:51, Frank Mainz >>>>> wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Hello Michael, >>>>>=20 >>>>> look in the WIKI and you know what is displayed. Otherwise, the >>>>> traffic >>>>> of individual IP addresses is logged with the help of entries >>>>> in >>>>> the >>>>> CUSTOM chains and graphically prepared. >>>>=20 >>>> The CUSTOM* chains can=E2=80=99t be touched by any programs that come >>>> with >>>> the distributions. They exist for users to add any custom rules >>>> and >>>> they are under full control by the user only. >>>=20 >>> Then it does fit. >>=20 >> No, it doesn=E2=80=99t, because you are not the user of all those firewall= s. >>=20 >> Every chain has a defined purpose, and you are using it for something >> it isn=E2=80=99t designed for and it will break setups. >>=20 >>>>> https://wiki.ipfire.org/addons/iptraffic-playground >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Greetings Frank >>>>>=20 >>>>> PS: Fullquote removed >>>>=20 >>>> Why? I don=E2=80=99t recommend doing this because it removes context from >>>> the >>>> conversation. >>>>=20 >>>> Best, >>>> -Michael >>>=20 >>> Then be careful next time not to quote >100 lines of source code. >>> How >>> this is supposed to preserve context is beyond me. >>=20 >> Because we write comments into the code. And we normally try to >> answer other people=E2=80=99s questions. >>=20 >> Do not forget that many people are reading this list and they do not >> devote a lot of time to get themselves involved in everything. >> Therefore things have to be understood at a quick glance. >>=20 >>> But do what you want. Exactly because of such reactions I didn't >>> want >>> to port the AddOn for IPFire. >>=20 >> I have absolutely no idea why you are reacting like this. The process >> is clear and I am here to make IPFire as good as I can possibly do. >>=20 >> I have simply asked what your code is and what it does. You seem to >> not want to answer those questions and why is unfortunately beyond >> me. >>=20 >>> Have a nice life. I am out. >>=20 >> Under those circumstances I must say that I find it very >> disappointing that you have wasted my time and Matthias=E2=80=99 time, too= . I >> have re-read my email and I do not see why this might have caused any >> offence. >>=20 >> I assume that nobody else wants to push this forward any more and >> maintain this code? >>=20 >> -Michael >=20 --===============6636240157814429973==--