On 3/7/02 1:21 AM, "Matt Sergeant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Richard Sonnen wrote:
>
>>>
>>> It's not exactly perfect, because it means we have to adjust spamd and
>>> spamassassin scripts to optionally use a different Conf class, but that's
>>> a trivial patch also. Want
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Richard Sonnen wrote:
> >
> >It's not exactly perfect, because it means we have to adjust spamd and
> >spamassassin scripts to optionally use a different Conf class, but that's
> >a trivial patch also. Want me to apply this and fix up spamd/spamassassin
> >too?
>
> This may w
>
>It's not exactly perfect, because it means we have to adjust spamd and
>spamassassin scripts to optionally use a different Conf class, but that's
>a trivial patch also. Want me to apply this and fix up spamd/spamassassin
>too?
This may well be the best option. (it's certainly a lower cost opt
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Richard Sonnen wrote:
> I've got an idea for making the SpamAssassin configuration process
> more flexible, and I'd love to hear your suggestions and comments
> before I jump in and make a mess of the code ;-)
>
> I'm in the process of deploying SpamAssassin on a distributed m
On 05 March 2002, Richard Sonnen said:
> I've got an idea for making the SpamAssassin configuration process
> more flexible, and I'd love to hear your suggestions and comments
> before I jump in and make a mess of the code ;-)
I'm in favour of making it more flexible, and I don't care about SQL
