Doc Schneider wrote:
Justin Mason wrote:
Theo Van Dinter writes:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:19:07AM -0800, John Myers wrote:
I'm not so big on turning off the functionality. We shouldn't erect
barriers against our being able to later publish full rules through
sa-update.
My POV is that we will never publish full rules again (so far,
everything
we would have previously (circa v2.[234]) used a full rule for is better
handled by code that targets what we want,) and we actively discourage
others from writing and using full rules. Therefore I think we should
definitely erect barriers against being able to publish full rules! :)
I don't want to get rid of them altogether, but if someone wants to use
them I think they need to actively think about what the issues are and
then do something to allow use if they decide full rules are worth it.
I'm not keen on the proposal, sorry.
*We* may not have full rules in the core ruleset, but I'm pretty sure
SARE
and other third parties have a few. SpamAssassin isn't just a bundled set
of rules -- it's a platform, too ;) Changing the platform -- in
a backwards incompatible way -- is a bad thing to do imo.
--j.
Yes SARE has a quite a few 'full' rules. So what Jason said makes sense.
Though, never thought of SpamAssassin as a platform but that too makes
an awful lot of sense.
D'Oh! I meant Justin not Jason. His jmason always throws me. ::thud::
--
-Doc
