https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7983
--- Comment #7 from Henrik Krohns <apa...@hege.li> --- (In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #6) > > We should keep things standardized, and that's basically what we should be > > voting for. > > As I mentioned, at least 2 other plugins do it the same way as OLEVBMacro. Which is why we should come up with a standard. > > Actually all the test keep warning loudly, since OLEVBMacro is loaded by > > default in t/data/01_test_rules.pre. I think I put lots of plugins there by > > default, to make sure they don't generally mess up any other functions. So > > I'd prefer to silence OLEVB. > > Good idea to add more plugins to those test pre files. We need more tests > for them too. > > However, re: the noise, outside of make test, what is the impact to users in > a real scenario? It seems like a useful, real-world warning which is likely > why it got added. I agree that it's probably marginally better to loudly warn about missing features. They can remove the loadplugin if they don't want warnings, or then install the modules. But all this should apply to SPF/DKIM etc too, it should not make a difference whether module is loaded by default or not. The user probably didn't read any warning that "perl Makefile.PL" outputted, or their Perl just broke later on, it would be nice to have a warning then. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
