Paul Cockings wrote:
Thanks for all the great posts about the dspam fork. I'll stick my
hand up and say that I'm ready to setup sf.net and fork this project
right away. I'm going to do this for the reasons: we can't commit
back, track changes or get a response from Sensory networks.
If I'm offending anyone please say now, I'm not here to offend I just
want to help.
The short term goals will be based around a place to track and fix
bugs, improve existing docs and generally reawaken the dspam project.
features etc can come later.
The most important bit to start is the new project name. Any
suggestions welcome (Mine aren't very creative)
dspam-new?
open-dspam?
de-spam?
death-droid?
Mark Rogers wrote:
Steve wrote:
Be sure that everyone using DSPAM and capable of coding or doing
other thins for DSPAM and some spare time will work on and for a
forked DSPAM. Gentoo as community based Linux distro will sure be on
board. I don't mean just me. All of the Gentoo users and maintainers.
I'd say this swings it if similar responses are found from other
communities (or if other communities aren't sufficiently active with
dspam to voice an opinion, as I suspect is the case with Debian at
present). If the active developers and the distros follow the fork,
it'll work. If not, it won't.
The first step has to be to incorporate patches and get into a
"release often" position. Too many forks (imho) fail by starting out
with grand ideas about the future direction of the project.
As far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong?) there is no way at
present for the community to contribute to dspam releases, as the
current owners are not doing anything with it so there's nowhere to
send patches to that could be formally adopted? If so that's what
forks are for. There's already enough for at least a new 3.8.x
release, and it can't currently happen without a fork.
My 2 cents: A DSpam fork is necessary because Jonz has openly said that
he won't be actively developing it anymore.
As for names, I'm not big on the "-New" idea, it can get messy (3 forks
down the road and you have New-DSpam-New-New).
Open-DSpam sounds OK, but isn't it already "Open"?
I have heard talk of using DSpam for things other than classifying Spam
(such as training it to find and filter web content to your liking), so
maybe removing the word "Spam" from the name would be in order.
Something more along the lines of a content filter or classification.
Con-Sort
(Content Sort) the word "consort" also means to associate kind of like
what a Bayesian filter does, associates words with spam.
dClass
(like declassify which means Open to the public, or the Antonym
"classify" which means to distinguish or match)
PigeonHole
(Means: to classify, sort, categorize, hold-off, put aside) My personal
favorite, but the domain name is already registered (though not in use)
uCon
(Users Content)
dJunk
(De-Junk)
BS-Filter
(Bayesian Spam Filter) or Bull Shit Filter if you like. ;)
Or if we wanted to keep the word Spam in the name:
bSpam
(for Bayesian Spam) A play on the original name.
Unfortunately there is already a service named BSPAM: http://www.bspam.com/
eSpam
(Erase Spam or Electronic Spam) A play on the original name.
Lisa Muir also proposed this one. (U got to it before me :p )
SpamBounce
???
dSpammer
???
Is there any reason we can't just continue development under the "DSpam"
name?
If a new name is necessary, I like:
1) PigeonHole
2) BS-Filter
3) eSpam
4) dClass
5) Con-Sort
-Jeff Harris
