Re: breaking out: thinking abt the 'sa-update *VS* rdj' thread ...

[Andy Jezierski]

Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/11/2006 11:11:00 AM:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> hi,
>
> < ... adjusting tin-foil hat and asbestos shorts ...>
>

Breaking out flamethrower.....  :-)

> a recent thread comment "from SARE" is the trigger here:
>
>    "RDJ and SAupdate are really separate from SARE"
>

Actually I'd say that RDJ & SARE are separate from SAupdate.

The official SA rules are meant to be used by all users.  SARE on the other hand is "Here's the rules we have, go ahead and pick and choose what you'd like to use. If anything"

There's nothing that says you have to use SARE rules, but you should use SAupdate.  SARE makes new rules available in a quick fashion that may eventually make their way into the official SA rules.

> from a user's perspective, all this is confusing/confounding.  as a
> user, i want to see/use one mechanism for rules.
>

Works rather well for me, no confusuion involved.  RDJ has my list of rules. If it finds an update, it downloads it.  SAupdate I'll manually run about once every couple weeks.

> quite clearly, with the advent of SA-project released/blessed sa-update,
> it's not really necessary anymore.  i.e., asynchronous rule & code
> releases are provided for.

I think SARE can put out a new rule for a specific spam problem a lot faster than the SA project, so I'll have to disagree with you here.

> SA *is* about managing/processing rules after all! ...

And SARE is a set of OPTIONAL, add on rules. Once installed, SA processes them very well.

Are optional addons to IE all installed the same way? No.  How about SA itself. You've got CPAN, tarball, ports, packages, RPMs etc. etc. etc. I have at least four different ways of installing the OPTIONAL SA package onto my FreeBSD system.  We are admins after all, not end users.

Flame thrower extinguished.

>
> </ removing tin-foil hat and asbestos shorts ... but keeping them
> readily available>

:-D

Andy