it's now gone ;)
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 02:33, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
wrote:
> On 02/04/2009 10:01 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>> we should probably remove that warning. it's been stable (at least in the
>> sense of the code not changing) for a long time now!
>
> +1 -- I've been using M::SA::Client on m
On 02/04/2009 10:01 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
> we should probably remove that warning. it's been stable (at least in the
> sense of the code not changing) for a long time now!
+1 -- I've been using M::SA::Client on my clusters (processing many
millions of messages a day) for more than 4 years with
nope ;)
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 16:36, Mark wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: jma...@gmail.com [mailto:jma...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Justin Mason
> Sent: donderdag 2 april 2009 16:03
> To: Mark
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Using Mail::SpamAssass
-Original Message-
From: jma...@gmail.com [mailto:jma...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Justin Mason
Sent: donderdag 2 april 2009 16:03
To: Mark
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Using Mail::SpamAssassin::Client
> we should probably remove that warning. it's been stable (
we should probably remove that warning. it's been stable (at least in the
sense of the code not changing) for a long time now!
--j.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 13:46, Mark wrote:
> As long as I can recall, SA has always had Mail::SpamAssassin::Client say:
>
> "NOTE: This interface is alpha at best..
As long as I can recall, SA has always had Mail::SpamAssassin::Client say:
"NOTE: This interface is alpha at best..." I've examined and used it,
though, and I must say it feels pretty 'beta' already to me. :) And it
just feels a lot cleaner than shelling out to spamc from within a Perl
daemon (
