Theo Van Dinter wrote: >I've rather intentionally ignored this thread completely, but I'll chime in >for a minute.
*laugh* How can you ignore something and simultaneously read it and reply. I see you are on Project Managment Committee also: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/spamassassin/trunk/CREDITS?root=Apache-SVN&view=markup >On Shelby Moore wrote: >> Thus, on the one hand, I can argue that our proposal is equivalent to >Razor, and thus to be fair you either include ours (or you disable Razor... >but I am not suggesting this). > >There is nothing about "fairness" in what's included. Are you sure want that to be the public perception of SpamAssassin? I know there is inherent "conflict of interest" but do you want to boast it? >> A) Make a plugin > >Yes. > >> B) Include in main (as done for Razor), but set it OFF by default > >No. I assume those are your veto votes as member of Project Mgmt Committee. I was only expressing options we are proposing. Apparently you ignored the conclusion in my previous post, where I wrote that #A is our preferred choice. >> And I suggest we have discussion (in other thread) whether Razor should be >a plugin also. But this is not a religious thing for me. I do NOT view >Razor/CloudMark as a competitor at all. > >No. No to what? You are already participating in that discussion in other thread. Are you saying "No" to yourself? http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=110982903400001&r=1&w=2 > We're pretty good about making decisions for what should and >shouldn't be a plugin already. To cut this short, Razor *is* a plugin >already. As is DCC, Pyzor, DomainKeys, AWL, the URIBL code, etc. But, the relevant point is they are ON by default, as you know already from the discussion you are participating in: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=110982903400001&r=1&w=2 >If you want to code up a plugin and offer it up for inclusion in the >standard release, great, I'd love to see it. Thanks. Why not just say this? Why all the negativity above when I already agreed to do this in my previous post which you are replying to? > Whether or not it's >included in mainline, or merely listed on the Wiki as a "third-party" >plugin, is a different issue entirely. Consistency is I think something you might want to strive for, as it impacts how others perceive and invest in you. > But it's rather moot to discuss >what we may or may not do based on something that doesn't exist yet, IMO. I think this thread was not moot. It very much helped us refine our plans so that we do development which are harmonious. It seems to me you are trying to take my previous post, which attempted a harmonious conclusion, and turn it back into a non-harmonious debate. It seems like you want this thread to end with some negative propoganda.
