Daniel Quinlan said: > I already improved this rule back on August 23rd, but someone made a > broken CVS commit that reverted the improvement (and maybe more, but I > didn't see anything obvious). I'm starting to wonder if perhaps we > should have some sort of peer review for back-port and forward-port > activity since "directional" mistakes seem to happen often enough to be > a problem.
BTW I've stopped using CVS for rule merging, due to this kind of brokenness. Easier just to use diff and cut and paste to visually verify merging there. So it won't happen again, at least while I'm doing it ;) > > I haven't tested it against 2.43 yet (Matt, CPAN?) so maybe this is a > > false alarm, but it appears to be a deliberate SA-spoiler. > > I'm sure 2.43 has the same problem. We can (carefully) backport > compensation improvements if we do a 2.44. I'm planning not to do a 2.44 if poss, though. --j. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Access Your PC Securely with GoToMyPC. Try Free Now https://www.gotomypc.com/s/OSND/DD _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
