> -----Original Message----- > From: Herb Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 4:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: PROPOSAL: create "SpamAssassin Rules Project" > > > > From: Chris Santerre > > To: 'Duncan Findlay'; [email protected] > > > Yes, but it's difficult for people to join SARE, or learn > what goes > > > into rule development. If all the development takes place > > in private, > > > then there's no way for newcomers to join and this is a > really bad > > > thing. > > > > How do you think all the SARE members got in? Wasn't hard. > > They did good work. Some wrote rules that were never used, > > but showed the will to do it. So they got in. > > > As a "rule writer wanna-be" let me say that this "code is > different" argument also affects us who will write rules. > When I read you Perl code, I usually understand much of > what you were trying to accomplish -- a rule can be relatively > opaque and devoid of intent when finished. > > If we approach the issue from the old mindset of "it > works for SARE" (etc) then we may get the same old results.
And the SARE results are...???? > > This is explicitly what you (we) are trying to change. Well you have to be awarded a commiter status in SA now, and we have many levels to URIBL staff. WHy not the same here. We have a public URIBL-dscuss list. And a private invite only list. Then we have different levels of commiters, with access to different features and tools. Or, open up the list to full public access, archives as well. I'm up for any kind of social experiment. --Chris
