On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:22:46 -0500 Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 09:06 AM 12/2/03 -0200, Marcio Merlone wrote: > >But, as an end-user (I sys-admin some thousands of mail accounts), I > >think that the rules could be forked from SA, so community could > >treat SA as a spam-scanning engine and the rules would be the spam > >database, like an anti-virus package. This would allow a more often > >update of the rules without the need to upgrade SA. > > > >I understand that some rules depends on features/functions inside SA, > >but such a proposed scheme would allow a more often update of the > >rules for each (?) new spam. > Horribly well intentioned, but vastly ill conceived. And also oft > discussed in the past on this list. > (...) > Instead new code comes out a whole lot faster than new rules.. which > is why SA the least significant digit of the SA version is usually > representative of the *code* release and not the rules release... > Generaly 5-6 updates to the code can be made before a new ruleset is > ready. (...) Thanks for your full-blown answer! :) I just feel sorry to have to dig the net and mailling lists forward some rules to stop those new spam... Sure I can search for, create my own rules, but for the average sys-admin it is not practicable when you have tons of different things to run. Perl -MCPAN should do, but it is not possible, so we must have to deal with. Best regards, -- Marcio Merlone [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ UIN #13746928 - Linux user #104911 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by OSDN's Audience Survey. Help shape OSDN's sites and tell us what you think. Take this five minute survey and you could win a $250 Gift Certificate. http://www.wrgsurveys.com/2003/osdntech03.php?site=8 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
