--On 3 October 2008 22:31:32 +0200 Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. Thanks Tomasz. I've filed bug number 1218, and 1216 is relevant, too. Can we see an end to this thread? It seems we're all agreed that the OP had a reasonable request; all software should behave nicely for everyone; nobody's lazy, but we're all very busy; ClamAV is a great product, and still under development. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex x3148 _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
