On 17/04/2006, at 5:20 PM, Bill Hely wrote: > 1.0.4 has an insurmountable problem in that respect; 1.1a1 has > (in your words) "a serious pop3proxy bug" (you didn't say what) > and, believe me Tony, it is quite inconceivable that any "average > user" is even going to attempt the CVS route. > > So where to?
The more people that pester me to get a release done, the more quickly it will be done (if the time it takes me to delete/reply to the messages exceeds that which it would take to do the release, then it just makes sense). I know that almost no-one will go the CVS route, which is why I very rarely recommend it. The situation is that 1.0.4 will work, but (with OE) has flawed filtering (iff you get ham that has spam in the To: and Subject:). 1.1a1 will not work - you will get SpamBayes taking huge amounts of memory and corrupted databases. > I'm trying to contribute to "the cause", but I seem to have hit a > brick wall with the case of other-than-Outlook clients. The brick wall is the limited time I and the other developers have a the moment, which has held up 1.1a2 by a year or so. However, it is now actually on its way (see previous message). =Tony.Meyer -- Please always include the list (spambayes at python.org) in your replies (reply-all), and please don't send me personal mail about SpamBayes. http://www.massey.ac.nz/~tameyer/writing/reply_all.html explains this. _______________________________________________ SpamBayes@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes Check the FAQ before asking: http://spambayes.sf.net/faq.html
