On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:37:19PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote: > Theo, from reading the bugzilla report the fix in question isn't even > in a released version of SA (yet) and only in SVN head.. Dan said it was > fixed in head on /2005-01-28, and there have been no releases since / > 2004-12-16 (3.0.2). Correct?
Right. But it's irrelevent IMHO. Most vendors don't just use the distributed releases. They'll make changes and what not. Even if they don't, you don't want to go changing a vendor's release on your own since you'll lose support, etc. > Given that this fix is only in the SVN tree, I doubt the vendor has a fix. Perhaps, perhaps not. RedHat, for instance, regularly takes features from new open source code and backports it into older releases that they support. The main example is their kernel RPMs where they were taking 2.6 features and backporting to the 2.4 kernel for their RHEL distros. I would guess vendors who embed/distribute SpamAssassin would do much the same thing. They're likely running their own modified versions of the code (within whatever appropriate license terms are in place), and then they merge in changes from either trunk or official OSS releases. Since trunk and such are openly available, there's no reason why the vendor couldn't have a fix already. In this case, however, it's not clear if he's running something like a Fedora RPM version of SpamAssassin where he could just go ahead and update at will, or if it's something like Barracuda/etc, where you really can't just go changing things on your own. The flip side of that of course is that you'll have vendor support who you can call and make requests of. ;) -- Randomly Generated Tagline: Speaking of purchasing a dog, never buy a watchdog that's on sale. After all, everyone knows a bargain dog never bites!
pgp07pw6PznG8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
