>
> ho hum... here we go again. :(
:)
>Secrecy is *NOT* an essential element of rule development. It seems
>logical to think it is, but evidence repeatedly demonstrates otherwise.
You know I differ in that opinion.
>For some spammers, it may _help_ -- but not for all, so it's by no means
>essential. On the other hand, secrecy damages collaborative development,
>restricting rule refinement and improvement to a secret "cabal". It's
>antithetical to open source development.
If the rules are openly released, I don't see how its antithetical. Some of the background work is just done quietly.
We don't restrict "rule refinement and improvement to a secret "cabal"". I've helped people on the SATALK list test their rules. And I've had some offer tweaks to SARE rules. There is no one stopping anyone from writing a rule and submitting it to SA devs!
IMHO, all of this could have been avoided if you had just kept the old SA logo ;)
Thanks,
Chris Santerre
SysAdmin and Spamfighter
www.rulesemporium.com
www.uribl.com
