On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 08:02:08PM -0800, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > > Anyway, if we split out reporting, then things will need to be > redesigned much more. The problem with the current design around > "spamassassin" is that various behaviors are implemented as flags rather > than svn-style subcommands or razor-style commands. >
FYI, I'm completely +1 for doing away with the command line options and going with either single commands or subcommand style (we can save that discussion). > > Obviously, one command, the main command, is "filter". > > The second command is "remove". This could be its own command or it > could possibly be added to "filter", but I think separate is probably > better since it's very simple. > Keep this part of filter. > "report" and "revoke" are the next commands, maybe together in one > command, although, again, I prefer separate commands here. > One command, think of them as opposing commands, yin and yang so to speak. > "whitelist" and "blacklist" -- these *really* belong in "sa-learn" since > it's AWL/History, but "sa-learn" has been crufted up with lots of > Bayes-specific stuff, so merging it with "sa-learn" will be non-trivial. > Please no, I'm -1 on this, I've worked very hard to separate the whitelist/blacklist/awl stuff from bayes. sa-learn is bayes, period. sa-history. I suppose we might have to support sa-awl, but maybe we can get away with "emulation" via spamassassin til we remove AWL. A quick aside, the current History plugin design emulates whitelist_from and blacklist_from (user added whitelist/blacklist entries will not decay over time). Might be worth merging the two in some capacity. Michael
pgpA7tjwnt4SO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
