man, 26.05.2003 kl. 23.37 skrev Simon Byrnand:
> >Keep your SA version up to date! What you write above certainly isn't > >the case for SA 2.60-CVS, the rules for which, coupled with Bayes and > >RBL checks, catch even the shortest of base64 and obfuscated bodies on > >header checks and the others alone. I get *no* false negatives and have > >only ever hat one false positive since I started using 2.60-CVS and it > >only keeps on getting better and better.
> You're not seriously advocating that people in general use 2.60-CVS are you ?
>
> It seems like a lot of problems people report make you almost automatically
> reply with "I use 2.60-CVS and it works fine in that !" :)
>
> Well, thats lovely and all, but most of us can't use bleeding edge code
> which changes on a nightly basis, which the developers themselves say not
> to use, to run mission critical servers....so a reply that says "but its
> fine in 2.60-cvs!" doesn't really help most people....perhaps even annoys a
> few....
I said: "keep your SA version up to date." I.e., don't winge if you're using 2.54 and the current version is 2.55." Least of all if you're still running 2.43.
Sure, but what relevance does saying "What you write above certainly isn't the case for SA 2.60-CVS......" have ? Nobody is suggesting that anyone should be using 2.60-cvs on production machines so my point remains - whether 2.60-cvs does or doesn't do something doesn't have any immediate relevance to most people, *until* 2.60 is released.
Regards, Simon
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: eBay Get office equipment for less on eBay! http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
