http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5751
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-19 14:11 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > 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... I'm going to be pretty -1 about that. The whole goal we were going for was to separate engine from rules. Requiring that people get our rules is a full 180 from the original goal. I also think that the whole default rules dir/local state dir override thing is a bit of a kluge and leads to problems like this. Which gets me back to the "only make rules available via sa-update" idea, which should make everyone happy. :) > > 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? It is the real faq, for sa-update anyway. It's in the man page. :) I don't know if it's linked from the general SA FAQ. > > 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? Sure. bug 5752. :) ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
