David F. Skoll wrote: > I suspect the Clam developers do it the way they do to force users to > look at (and think about) their configuration files. This is a laudable > goal, but really interferes with usability and creates problems where there > need not be any. So I ask the developers (and I'd appreciate an official > response): Will you please consider: > > Version N: Accept option Foo > Version N+1: Warn about obsolete option Foo > Version N+2: Reject option Foo and abort > > Where "N" is a major version.
Hello David, please create a report in our bugzilla and we will definitely consider this enhancement for 0.95. To address some other issues raised in this thread, I'd like to assure you we do our best to make your experience with ClamAV better. So far we have implemented most of the features requested by our users (please see the bugzilla - http://bugs.clamav.net for examples). For all major releases we publish release candidates, giving package maintainers and users at least two weeks to familiarize with the changes. These release candidates are publicised both on this list, on clamav-announce, and on www.clamav.net. Moreover, for major changes (such as the new logic in scan limits introduced in 0.93) we try to ask on this list for your opinions which are very important to us. As a gentle reminder, please report any problems, ideas or requests you may have directly at http://bugs.clamav.net what should make the communication with the development team much more efficient. Thank you, Tomasz -- oo ..... Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (\/)\......... http://www.ClamAV.net/gpg/tkojm.gpg \..........._ 0DCA5A08407D5288279DB43454822DC8985A444B //\ /\ ClamAV, a GPL anti-virus toolkit _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
