G.W. Haywood wrote:
> What you say is true.  However it would be much clearer that you
> understand that your new milter breaks a lot of existing and even in
> some cases carefully crafted and well tested code on many mailservers
> if you had apologised for it once more instead of simply snipping the
> part of the OP's mail which mentions it.

It does not break anything. In fact I've written a new milter without
touching the old one. If it suits you, go on and use it. If it doesn't
just use the old milter. Up to you.

And... apologies for?

> You can expect administrators who find themselves having to script
> their way around your changes to wonder if there might be a package
> which both provides equivalent functionality and has a stable API.

Again I dont. If you don't want to change, just don't.
Also, if you fell like maintaining the old milter please send us
patches. It's still sitting under /contrib and will always be available
there. I'll be committing them for you.

As a side note the new milter was announced on December the 5th. In
exactly 4 months i've received 1 bug report, promply fixed, and, as of
yesterday, 0 feature requests.
See http://lurker.clamav.net/message/20081205.152347.a7d7c9ee.en.html

Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net

Reply via email to