* Jo Rhett wrote (18/10/06 08:57): > Matt Kettler wrote: >> It's *really* common to separate spamd from the MTA for anyone that's >> got any decent volume of mail. And that's not a few sites. > > And I guess that I'm saying > > 1. People installing from RPMs and/or Ports (or Portage, etc) expect > things to work out of the box. Having it be broken for them creates a > problem very visible if you search for all_trusted in the list archives. > > 2. "Any decent volume of mail" with "separate servers" means it's a > customized mail environment CONFIGURED BY EXPERTS :-) > > I dunno. I would aim for the former, and then provide good docs for the > latter. The former generally don't read the docs, and I prefer to avoid > the mailing list noise. >
I hope you don't mind an observer's view here. It seems that Jo wants autodetection to: 1) comply with the documentation 2) just work for most people 3) be easily fixable in other cases This, it seems to me, is exactly what it does. OK, maybe it doesn't work in Jo Rhett's system. But defining "most people" as "people who do things like Jo Rhett" is suspect at best. I can see a case for saying "autodetection can't possibly work in all cases, so disable it by default". But saying "it doesn't do what I expect, so it's broken" seems to show a disregard for the documentation and all the (lots of) historical discussions about the subject. Anyone who has seen spam hitting ALL_TRUSTED (as I have) can sort the problem out with reference to good documentation in minutes. That's if they are like me and installed spamassassin without really knowing anything about it. If they were more switched on, they would have read the documentation first.
