On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 05:45:52AM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 the voices made Craig R Hughes write: > > > Duncan Findlay wrote: > > > > DF> Would it not be easier to simply release the non-eval rules. Sure, > > DF> scores wouldn't be ideal. But hey, that's the price you pay :-) > > > > Yes, more or less. Except also excluding other rules like, say, uri rules > > before the 2.20 release, or "ok_languages", say. > > Really longterm solution... cutting the whole thing up so that there's a main > part and "rule-modules" that require certain versions of it to not be ignored. > That'd also make it easier to exlude/add groups of rules based on what's needed > locally. >
That's an interesting point. I don't think we'd really need to split anything up that much. If we were, at some time in the future, to distribute EvalTests.pm as a configuration file that would be eval'd (I know someone (Matt?) was suggesting this a while ago) we'd just add something like: return 0 if $Mail::SpamAssassin::VERSION < 2.30; Really, we could start distributing eval'd tests in a configuration file that would be eval'd now. (I'm not saying we should, I'm saying we could) -- Duncan Findlay _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
