"Dan Kohn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would the Apache folks get upset if you let the SARE people store > their scripts on spamassassin.apache.org and then just let everyone > have at them? Isn't that the purpose of the Apache mirrors? I would > think it would be fine as long as the SARE rules are released under > the Apache license.
I think nobody would be upset (quite the opposite!), but now you're really talking about code, not documentation, they really ought to fall under the Apache process. There's no reason we couldn't have an "auto-update" SpamAssassin sub-project. The biggest advantage would be the use of the Apache 2.0 license. It would allow derivative rules to fall under the same license automatically, reducing the number of people that need to contribute CLAs if a rule set is later introduced into the main code base. The other advantages are left as an exercise to the reader. > Push is a lot more efficient, but it's also harder to implement on the > client side. I'm not convinced that push optimizes on the scarce > variable. I think pull is sufficient. I'd suggest: - the data set includes the recommended pull interval, so this can be updated without a software update - start with a day Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
