On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:09:10AM -0800, Loren Wilton wrote: > Let me suggest that this is a *REALLY* *BAD* idea. > No, make that "an *EXCEPTIONALLY* *AWFUL* idea".
Really? If it weren't a rule type -- a section of code that is not
being used, and who use has been actively discouraged for years ...
it'd be deleted without having to think about it.
> what a one-line rule should be able to do. Probably a third of the SARE
> rules are 'full' rules as a result of rawbody being deliberately useless.
You found us out! We write deliberately useless code!
> If you remove full rules you will have effectively eliminated any chance of
> SA catching ANY of the modern forms of spam, all of which are currently only
> detectable with full rules, or with Dallas's rule forms that won't get
> approved.
Really? I have no full rules and few rawbody rules (the default) and
catch literally all of the spam I receive.
> If 'full' rules are disabled, SA is effectively disabled with the exception
> of Bayes and URIBL. There would probably be a much lower-overhead solution,
> say SpamBayes, if SA's rules capability is effectively removed. Which seems
> to be the effective intent of this proposal.
Please. If you don't like a proposal, you can say so simply without having to
spew diatribe all over the place. Claiming the world is going to end if
something changed is not necessarily the best way to get people to agree with
you.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"I do not like Santiago. I've always thought that a leader should have a
strong chin. He has no chin, and his Vice-President has several. This to me
is not a good combination."
- Ivonova, Babylon 5 (Midnight on the Firing Line)
pgpx7mKnIYRqo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
