Bill Cole wrote: > > > perhaps, the rules above should be defined only for version >=4 > > and versions <4 should have the original rules. > > The rule name change is an artifact of how the rules are version-controlled. > We have exactly one version of the rules and it resides in the trunk of the > Subversion repository. This imposes a discipline: we MUST keep the rules > working with the latest release, with past releases to the degree possible, > and with the next release. This also means that rules which use new features > get exposed to everyone before the features. A terminology change across the > codebase isn't done instantaneously so unless you're running from a 'trunk' > checkout, you won't see the changes outside of the rules until they are all > done, but while adapting the rules we got a few imperfect interim stages > before the current implementation, which just works. > > What does NOT work is to conflate the change in rule names with a change in > configuration directive names. They are different things.
Thanks a lot to all who replied. So, for the uninitiated like me, I just keep the old white* and black* in my local.cf, and put up with the deprecation warning in the Spam Report. Is this correct? -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN 2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
