http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5751
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-21 09:16 ------- (In reply to comment #12) > I don't think that fixes the issue in > http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5751#c5 . Well, yes and no, and that's not what we were discussing. ;) The issues in question are: - if the local_state_dir is created, but nothing is in it, what do we do? Right now, if it exists, we use it. The current sa-update only creates the dir if it's about to extract channel files, and if that fails the directories get removed -- see bug 4941 and sa-update starting around line 726. So in short, sa-update should never cause this situation. If we are worried about this situation though, the way to work around it, IMO, is to skip it. - if the local_state_dir doesn't have updates.spamassassin.org in it, but has other channels in it, what do we do? Our design says: using updates.spamassassin.org is optional, so use whatever is available in the dir. I'm going to be absolutely -1 on changing this -- we have to allow people to not use our rules if they don't want to. We can highly recommend they use them, but it's up to the user, and larger organizations will want to be able to have their own channels available and not use ours. We have documented about adding channels and needing to use updates.spamassassin.org if they expect the standard ruleset. If we want to improve these docs to make it more obvious, great. - if one channel fails while we're updating multiple channels, what do we do? Right now, we let that channel fail and continue with the other channels. IMO, this is the right thing to do. It does mean that people need to pay attention if this is the first time they're running sa-update for a given channel, and handle failures appropriately. At the moment, I wouldn't be opposed, if people wanted to, have sa-update be more verbose if it's trying to get/install updates.spamassassin.org, and it fails, and other channels already exist or other channels are in the queue to be updated. It could probably be added w/out making too much of a mess (ie: track the pass/fail per channel, then at the end figure out the situation and warn appropriately -- hey, isn't this part of bug 5043?). :) As you may have guessed at this point, I'm not very sympathetic to people burning themselves when playing with fire. I think fire is important, and want to make sure that if people want to, they can play with it. I don't mind making sure the warning signs are clear about the dangers of doing so, however. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
