From msquadrat.nospamplease@gmx.net Wed Sep 11 19:41:22 2002
Return-Path: <msquadrat.nospamplease@gmx.net>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8BEF16F03
for <jm@localhost>; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:41:21 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
for jm@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:41:21 +0100 (IST)
Received: from mailout11.sul.t-online.com (mailout11.sul.t-online.com
[194.25.134.85]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
g8BFNDC20372 for <jm@jmason.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:23:13 +0100
Received: from fwd00.sul.t-online.de by mailout11.sul.t-online.com with
smtp id 17p9L7-0005Jj-05; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:23:37 +0200
Received: from nebukadnezar.msquadrat.de
(520061089980-0001@[217.80.6.194]) by fmrl00.sul.t-online.com with esmtp
id 17p9L2-19TcBsC; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:23:32 +0200
Received: from otherland (otherland.msquadrat.de [10.10.10.10]) by
nebukadnezar.msquadrat.de (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.3 (i386)) with ESMTP id
90BFDDC; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:23:34 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
From: "Malte S. Stretz" <msquadrat.nospamplease@gmx.net>
To: spamassassin-devel@example.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [SAdev] 2.42 to come ?
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:26:19 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
References: <20020911141938.CF8BE16F19@spamassassin.taint.org>
In-Reply-To: <20020911141938.CF8BE16F19@spamassassin.taint.org>
Cc: yyyy@spamassassin.taint.org (Justin Mason)
X-Accept-Language: de, en
X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring
X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated
X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm)
X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm)
X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this
X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas
X-Habeas-Swe-7: Warrant Mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant
X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this
X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to <http://www.habeas.com/report/>.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <200209111726.19845@malte.stretz.eu.org>
X-Sender: 520061089980-0001@t-dialin.net
On Wednesday 11 September 2002 16:19 CET Justin Mason wrote:
> Malte S. Stretz said:
>[...]
> > I think we should even add new (GA'd) rules to 2.4x (and/or remove old
> > ones) and tag a new 2.50 only if we have a bunch of features worth a
> > "dangerous" big update. I'd say: Yes, you should expect 2.42 and also
> > 2.43+ (but update to 2.41 now).
>
> I would think adding new rules to, or removing broken rules from, 2.4x
> would require some discussion first. but new GA'd scores are definitely
> worth putting in, as the ones there are too wild.
I think my mail wasn't very clear ;-) My point was that we should continue
releasing new rules and removing broken ones (all based on discussions on
this list of course) in the 2.4 branch instead of creating a new 2.5 branch
everytime we have a bunch of new rules.
A new branch should be openend only if (big) new features are introduced
(eg. Bayes) or the interface has changed (spam_level_char=x). As the rules
are under fluent development, the user has to update quite regularly. But
currently he couldn't be shure if the new release will break anything in
his setup (like -F going away). So if we say "the branches are stable to
the outside and just improved under the surface but you have to watch out
when you update to a new minor version number", users and sysadmins could
be less reluctant to update.
All just IMHO :o)
Malte
P.S.: I'll be away from my box and my mail account for one week, starting
tomorrow. So happy coding for the next week :-)
--
--- Coding is art.
--