From: "Bret Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Nor does it make sense to use a tool, even if supplied
with SpamAssassin,
>>> that is broken for performing updates.
>
>> what's the "broken" part?
>
> Well, this may not qualify as broken, but I would say it's an
> undesirable behavior that, upon successful download of the new
> set of rules, it immediately deletes your old set of rules.
> What happens if the new set is broken? There's no easy way
> to revert to the last known good state.
>
> I would prefer a system where it downloads every update to a new
> directory, then just changes a symlink to point to the newest
> one, leaving the old one in place in case you want to revert.
> Of course, this would require a system for expiring old updates
> (since you don't want to have 100 copies of the rules sitting
> around), but that shouldn't be too hard.
One would presume an intelligent system for doing such updates would
play directory rename tricks or simply copy off active rules to an
archive directory so that if a "spamassasssin --lint" fails on the
newly downloaded files recovery could be effected easily. One would
further presume that update would do this. Is this cyberunit faulty
for making this presumption?
Sa-update lints prior to updating, and updates only if the rules lint
successfully.
Bret, I'd have been utterly astonished if it didn't.
{^_-}
