On 01/15/2010 10:29 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
Downloads are available from:
http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/
md5sum of archive files:
015d42846c819ce3aa286650bb54b53e Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc3.tar.bz2
be83248ba40ed12a20bc1f8aab8cfa7f Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc3.tar.gz
a35927c52d9554f0305af584097314c2 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc3.zip
ecb7f176ecc58bc34605f704c3ea2232
Mail-SpamAssassin-rules-3.3.0-rc3.r899655.tgz
sha1sum of archive files:
2326787147a6dc768db4e891628e6e76d7b3b4d4 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc3.tar.bz2
c96a742e23ac4d5490df41494d9265ca9a8b76de Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc3.tar.gz
a10bdad497b9a4d336fc617aa495299f75dc3716 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc3.zip
ecdc6bf631586b099f3222117bc2e79789dd9fa8
Mail-SpamAssassin-rules-3.3.0-rc3.r899655.tgz
proposed release announcement is there too:
http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/PROPOSED-3.3.0-rc3.txt
please vote. cheers ;)
-1
Even though my rc3 was unofficial, it is entirely uncool from packager
perspective to reuse names. Names are meaningless and cheap. This
should have been named rc4.
Furthermore I am unconvinced that we should change the "use bytes" thing
at this last minute. It has been going on since early 3.2.x and we're
fixing it only at the last moment before 3.3.0? This seems unsafe.
Could someone provide a sample message that takes an obscene amount of time?
Warren
