Replied: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:46:42 +0100 Replied: "Malte S. Stretz" Replied: spamassassin-devel@example.sourceforge.net From msquadrat.nospamplease@gmx.net Wed Sep 11 19:41:22 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8BEF16F03 for ; 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 ; 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" 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@example.com> In-Reply-To: <20020911141938.CF8BE16F19@example.com> Cc: yyyy@example.com (Justin Mason) X-Spam-Checker: SpamAssassin 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 . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <200209111726.19845@malte.stretz.eu.org> X-Sender: 520061089980-0001@t-dialin.net X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.5 required=7.0 tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,FORGED_RCVD_TRAIL,HABEAS_SWE, IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT, USER_AGENT_KMAIL,X_ACCEPT_LANG version=2.50-cvs X-Spam-Level: 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. --