http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5751
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-19 13:55 ------- (In reply to comment #7) > Yes, of course. That's how sa-update is supposed to work. updates.spamassassin.org isn't a required > channel, nor should it be (there are use cases where people want to just use their own channels, for > instance). after seeing the uses of rule updates in the field, I'd say it'd be more appropriate if updates.spamassassin *was* a required channel, triggering additional paranoia about leaving empty rules dirs behind. We could possibly add a command-line switch to disable this error-checking, but IMO it's better than allowing PEBKAC errors so easily... > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/RuleUpdates has this covered as the very top item in the FAQ > section, btw. is that linked from the *real* FAQ anywhere? > For most people, if they're adding in a third party channel, they'll need to pay attention to > the fact that they need the project's channel to install as well to get those rules. > IMO, this would be addressed by us not including any rules w/ the standard distro and requiring all > rules to come from the update system. It also fixes our issue whereby we have multiple areas for rules > for the same SA version (ie: rules/branches/3.2 and branches/3.2/rules ...) hmm.... might be worth considering this for 3.3.0. how's about opening a bug to discuss it? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
