http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5751
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-28 04:17 ------- (In reply to comment #15) > > we have to allow people to not use our rules if they don't want to. We can > > highly recommend they use them, but it's up to the user, and larger > > organizations will want to be able to have their own channels available and > > not use ours. > > Let me add my 2 cents worth here. I can understand the above requirement, but > I would expect that not using your rules would be an unusual situation. > Perhaps an extremely unusual situation. I think that not using your rules > should require an explicit ok from the site manager. I propose that there > should be a configuration option that must be set before not using your rules > would be allowed. Without that option, the distributed rules would be used > if none are found in the update directory. That way someone who wanted to > use updated additional rules but use your distributed rules without updates > could do so. I really have to agree. I *do* agree that we need to support using SA (and sa-update) without requiring that the default ruleset be used -- but in this case, using sa-update to download thirdparty rulesets *without* also downloading updates to the default ruleset is a very unusual case; I doubt there's anyone in the world yet doing this. IMO, it'd make most sense if that was not permitted unless explicitly requested using a new "--no-default-rules" switch or similar. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
