https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7017
--- Comment #2 from AXB <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #1) > A rose by any other name... I see little point in changing the name. There > is no consistency to why the rules in bayes_23.cf are named but 999 so equal > sense to 100. > > And as we have made announcements including BAYES_999, re-making those > announcements with BAYES_100 and making people change their rulesets yet > again for zero technical gain is a -1 from me. BAYES_999 was added/published due to a user suggestion. had the name been discussed, maybe we could have agreed into BAYES_100, also for cosmetic reasons. pushing the BAYES_100 rulename and announcing the name change, in advance, wouldn't cause much more havoc than the initial release did .-) As is now we're stuck a weird looking name - singing out of tune forever. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
