Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-24 08:09 UTC

aio-libs / aiosmtpd

A reimplementation of the Python stdlib smtpd.py based on asyncio.

PythonApache-2.0★ 373 stars⑂ 107 forkssince Jul 2016View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#asyncio #smtp #smtp-server #lmtp #smtpd #mta #smtp-mta #mail-mta #email #python

aio-libs/aiosmtpd holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (82/100) and lowest on Security (47/100). It was last updated 11 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met

Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps

Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable

Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended

Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas

At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution

Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

aio-libsOrganization

1,224 followers69 public repossince Mar 2014

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	aiosmtpd	1.4.6	1,564,035	26	888 days ago	email smtpd smtp

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

58Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

65Good

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 11 days ago
10.4/36	Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
15.8/18	Commit volume — 57 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 25 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	57
human_commit_share	0.4
days_since_last_push	11
active_weeks_last_year	15

Release discipline

48Weak

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 16 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 888 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~131.5 days
8/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.

Inputs used

releases_count	16
latest_release_tag	v1.4.6
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	888
mean_days_between_releases	131.5

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

82Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

63Moderate

How it's scored

41.7/60	Stars — 373 stars
16.9/25	Forks — 107 forks
4.7/15	Watchers — 8 watchers

Inputs used

forks	107
stars	373
watchers	8
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 1,564,035 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	aiosmtpd
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	1,564,035
unverified_packages_excluded	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

69Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

63Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 37% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 40 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	40
top_contributor_share	0.374

Issue & PR responsiveness

68Good

How it's scored

26/42	Issue resolution — 62% of issues closed
23.2/30	PR acceptance — 306/396 decided PRs merged
4.3/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed

Inputs used

merged_prs	306
open_issues	78
closed_issues	127
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	4
prs_decided_30d	6
issue_closed_ratio	0.62
closed_unmerged_prs	90
first_time_authors_30d	3
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	3

Ownership & stewardship

77Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
22.2/25	Owner reach — 1,224 followers of aio-libs
25/25	Track record — 69 public repos, account ~12 yr old

Inputs used

followers	1,224
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	aio-libs
public_repos	69
account_age_days	4,596

Package maintenance

69Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35	Publish recency — latest publish 888 days ago
20/20	Version history — 26 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	aiosmtpd
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	888

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.isort]), setup.cfg ([flake8]), tox.ini
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://aiosmtpd.aio-libs.org
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 10 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	asyncio, smtp, smtp-server, lmtp, smtpd, mta, smtp-mta, mail-mta, email, python
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://aiosmtpd.aio-libs.org
docs_site	https://aiosmtpd.aio-libs.org
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

47Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

34At Risk

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 top contributor profilesRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5	Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 25 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5	Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	7.7
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	50
security_posture_after_multiplier	38
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	77

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	2
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:aiosmtpd@1.4.6 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 2 packages. Reachability is not analyzed.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

67Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 38 of 40 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.95
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

70Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — aiosmtpd/docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.isort]), setup.cfg ([flake8]), tox.ini
11/11	Static type checking — .mypy.ini, aiosmtpd/py.typed
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 60 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	aiosmtpd/docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	.mypy.ini, aiosmtpd/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.6

Code legibility for models

79Good

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (.mypy.ini, aiosmtpd/py.typed)
52.2/55	Manageable file sizes — 2/39 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	75,063
source_files_sampled	39
oversized_source_files	2

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

373GitHub stars

40contributors

57commits, last 12 months

11days since last push

16releases

2bus factor

78open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 107 ⇿

0Stars

107Forks

16Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

Major 0Minor 2Patch 12

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.7 / 10

7.7aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-10-24 08:09 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10	CI-Tests	21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10	Code-Review	all changesets reviewed
10	Contributors	project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	25 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
8	Signed-Releases	5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9	Vulnerabilities	1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 2

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	atpublic	`—`	setup.cfg
PyPI	attrs	`—`	setup.cfg

All dependencies 34

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	atpublic	`—`	direct
PyPI	atpublic	`5.0`	direct
PyPI	attrs	`—`	direct
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	direct
PyPI	argon2-cffi	`—`	indirect
PyPI	check-manifest	`0.50`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	dnspython	`—`	indirect
PyPI	dnspython	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	flake8	`7.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-2020	`1.8.1`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-annotations-complexity	`0.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-bandit	`4.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-bugbear	`24.8.19`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-builtins	`3.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-comprehensions	`3.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-copyright	`0.2.4`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-import-order	`0.19.2`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-pytest-style	`2.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-requirements	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	flake8-simplify	`0.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`6.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`—`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx	`8.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-autofixture	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-paramlinks	`0.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-rtd-theme	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	tox	`—`	indirect
PyPI	trustme	`1.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	types-colorama	`0.4.15.20240311`	indirect
PyPI	types-docutils	`0.21.0.20241005`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:aiosmtpd@1.4.6 pulls in 2 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records