Ray Anderson wrote:
>> What is the best approach with stuff like this - should I >> simply carry on and >> open a bugreport or is best to bring it up here first? >> > > I tried to deal with this one and got told to upgrade, which I cannot do at > this time.
Same here. I was hoping that the 2 and 3 branches would live parallel lives for
a while.
Highly unlikely, largely due to lack of developer resources. SA has enough of a devel team to support their existing projects, but supporting older versions would draw away from their efforts. Keeping ahead of spammers is tough. Keeping ahead of spammers and trying to work on a 2.6 version, which has to run on an obsolete version of perl few of the developers have any experience with, in parallel with the 3.0 version, is even harder.
It's also partly due to licensing differences. SA is now an ASF project, but SA 2.x has a non-apache license. SA 3.0 code cannot always be backported to SA 2.x in a trivial manner.
I don't understand why this can't be fixed in 2.64 - surely it is not dependent
on new functionality exclusive to 3.0?
No, the fix isn't 3.0 specific. They fixed it by removing the rule entirely from the 3.0 series. If you want a backport of that particular fix, the score 0 trick has the exact same effect.
> I finally had to put a score in my local.cf that reduces the score to zero.
I've already got a couple of those caused by similar problems, and I'm not overly enthusiastic about it.
Well, in the long run, removing lots of rules means your score set becomes unbalanced.
This is why, in the long run, an upgrade really is the better answer.
However, in the short run, disabling the errant rules is pretty much the only option you have. And really, it's not *that* detrimental.
