Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
Kelson wrote: How about ROSS: Real Open Source Software? Bitchin' Open Source Software: BOSS :-)
Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 05:04:35PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote: At 04:43 PM 9/30/2004, Ben Rosengart wrote: we are pretty unhappy about the skimpy upgrade documentation Hmm, true, but are you volunteering to help write better documentation? I would be happy to summarize whatever I learn and post it to this list. If someone wishes to modify that summary and/or make it available for download, they have my blessing. and the number of apparently-gratuitous changes (hits becomes score?). You'd not believe the number of people who don't understand what SA means by hits when they first encounter it. I work for an ISP. Are you sure I wouldn't believe it? :-) I don't take much exception to that change, because it's very easy to accommodate in a backwards- and forwards-compatible way. That is our main concern here at Panix. That is, all software that currently matches on hits can be changed to match on (hits|score), and will work before and after the upgrade without any difficulty. To the extent that user_prefs files and (most) command-line options are similarly backwards- and forwards-compatible, this upgrade will be painless for us. To be more explicit, I would like to make necessary changes *before* the upgrade to the extent that I can, in such a way that the system will behave as expected both before and after the upgrade. What I'm trying to determine here is to what extent that's possible, and conversely to what extent I will have to synchronize various parts of the upgrade procedure. -- Ben Rosengart(212) 741-4400 x215 Unix gives 0.35 t/ha extra yield. Can you afford to ignore the Unix difference?
RE: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
I like it - ROSS - Stress for Less. -Original Message- From: Kelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 15:18 To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions Matt Kettler wrote: Given that it's been around for at least 6 years (I spotted it in a May 1998 post on usenet) I don't think FOSS is going anywhere. I liked OSS better, but then several companies decided offering high-dollar licenses to their code made them open source software and diluted any meaning that expression had. Perhaps we need a new one.. NBSOSS.. No BS Open Source Software... :) How about ROSS: Real Open Source Software? -- Kelson Vibber SpeedGate Communications www.speed.net
Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
To the extent that user_prefs files and (most) command-line options are similarly backwards- and forwards-compatible, this upgrade will be painless for us. To be more explicit, I would like to make necessary changes *before* the upgrade to the extent that I can, in such a way that the system will behave as expected both before and after the upgrade. What I'm trying to determine here is to what extent that's possible, and conversely to what extent I will have to synchronize various parts of the upgrade procedure. My impression is that *probably* you can put the 3.0 syntax into user_prefs files while running 2.6x, and things will probably still work. You will get lint errors, but I don't *think* they will abort processing. Likewise the 2.6x values will cause lint errors in 3.0. But again, I *think* they will not abort processing. I would insure a blank line on each side of a line that is changing between 2.x and 3.0. I've occasionally had what appear to be scanner recovery problems after an error, and the blank line gives the scanner a better chance of correct recovery. OTOH, I think you will have problems with command line arguments, unless you clean out the depreciated things before attempting the upgrade. Since presumably only depreciated things were actually removed in 3.0, there should have either been a viable alternative in 2.6x that is still valid in 3.0, or the items should have been useless in 2.6x. In either case, I think you should probably be able to get the command lines up to 3.0 spec while still on 2.6x, IF they did it right. If not, you may need to come up with some very clever script code to decide which line to used based on the program version. Loren
Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
From: snowjack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kelson wrote:
How about ROSS: Real Open Source Software?
Bitchin' Open Source Software: BOSS
That's as bad as the acronym/name for what I developed back in the
CP/M 1.3 days when I could not afford both the disk drives and the
copy of CP/M, Disk-Based Operating Sub System, D-BOSS.
{O,o} Gawd but that was a long time ago.
Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Ben Rosengart wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 06:40:18PM -0600, Lucas Albers wrote: Some options kick you in the face. Such as -a for spamd which will prevent it from starting. Ouch. Is the list of deprecated options and directives in the UPGRADE document definitive? Here at Panix -- where we have a bunch of spamds, a bunch of spamcs, a whole lot of automatically- and hand-generated customer configurations, and no way to upgrade everything all at once -- we are pretty unhappy about the skimpy upgrade documentation, and the number of apparently-gratuitous changes (hits becomes score?). While I would never presume to suggest that you work with pre-release in a huge production environment, like at Panix, would it not have behooved someone, there, to run them in a test environment...even stage the upgrade to the release version, in test, prior to throwing it out there for general consumption. -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org Visit the Dog Pound II BBS telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org To be notified of updates to the web site, visit http://www.bubbanfriends.org/mailman/listinfo/site-update, or send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a message of: subscribe
Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
I think as many of the changes for an upgrade between 2.6 and 3.0 should be documented somewhere. Not the upgrade document, because their are two many changes. (eg, My bug on this issue got rejected.) In the wiki somewhere, then. David Brodbeck said: Lucas Albers wrote: Some options kick you in the face. Such as -a for spamd which will prevent it from starting. But it gives you an error message explaining exactly what you have to do, so that's pretty much self-documenting. -- Luke Computer Science System Administrator Security Administrator,College of Engineering Montana State University-Bozeman,Montana
Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 06:40:18PM -0600, Lucas Albers wrote: Some options kick you in the face. Such as -a for spamd which will prevent it from starting. Ouch. Is the list of deprecated options and directives in the UPGRADE document definitive? Here at Panix -- where we have a bunch of spamds, a bunch of spamcs, a whole lot of automatically- and hand-generated customer configurations, and no way to upgrade everything all at once -- we are pretty unhappy about the skimpy upgrade documentation, and the number of apparently-gratuitous changes (hits becomes score?). -- Ben Rosengart(212) 741-4400 x215 Unix gives 0.35 t/ha extra yield. Can you afford to ignore the Unix difference?
Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
At 04:43 PM 9/30/2004, Ben Rosengart wrote: we are pretty unhappy about the skimpy upgrade documentation Hmm, true, but are you volunteering to help write better documentation? (General principle in FOSS: If you don't like it, volunteer to help if you're able.) At least this time there is an UPGRADE document. That never happened before in any other release, which is a small step forward. Prior releases got a few terse notes about the major issues added to README, but nothing nearly as in-depth as the still-sparse UPGRADE document from 3.0. and the number of apparently-gratuitous changes (hits becomes score?). You'd not believe the number of people who don't understand what SA means by hits when they first encounter it. Particularly since SA used to use score hits and points interchangeably and without much consistency. A lot of naming convention changes come about after realizing that the original naming isn't as clear as originally thought, or inconsistent with other parts of the software. It's painful to go through, but makes life a bit easier on the project in the long run by improving clarity. This lack of consistency has been in the buglist for a long time. http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1332
Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 05:04:35PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote: At 04:43 PM 9/30/2004, Ben Rosengart wrote: we are pretty unhappy about the skimpy upgrade documentation Hmm, true, but are you volunteering to help write better documentation? (General principle in FOSS: If you don't like it, volunteer to help if Side note - who came up with this horrible acronym (I can't bring myself to repeat it), and can people stop using it already!
RE: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
-Original Message- From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:05 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions At 04:43 PM 9/30/2004, Ben Rosengart wrote: we are pretty unhappy about the skimpy upgrade documentation Hmm, true, but are you volunteering to help write better documentation? (General principle in FOSS: If you don't like it, volunteer to help if you're able.) Reminds me of something DQ says a lot, something like, If you submit the code for that, we will be happy to review it. :-) At least this time there is an UPGRADE document. That never happened before in any other release, which is a small step forward. Prior releases got a few terse notes about the major issues added to README, but nothing nearly as in-depth as the still-sparse UPGRADE document from 3.0. Yes, I was wuite happy to see an UPGRADE. That is a step forward. It also says to see the wiki. They can't know everyones setups, but they give you the basics. and the number of apparently-gratuitous changes (hits becomes score?). You'd not believe the number of people who don't understand what SA means by hits when they first encounter it. Particularly since SA used to use score hits and points interchangeably and without much consistency. A lot of naming convention changes come about after realizing that the original naming isn't as clear as originally thought, or inconsistent with other parts of the software. It's painful to go through, but makes life a bit easier on the project in the long run by improving clarity. I'm also happy to see this change. --Chris
Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
At 05:11 PM 9/30/2004, Will Yardley wrote: Side note - who came up with this horrible acronym (I can't bring myself to repeat it), and can people stop using it already! Given that it's been around for at least 6 years (I spotted it in a May 1998 post on usenet) I don't think FOSS is going anywhere. I liked OSS better, but then several companies decided offering high-dollar licenses to their code made them open source software and diluted any meaning that expression had. Perhaps we need a new one.. NBSOSS.. No BS Open Source Software... :)
Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
Matt Kettler wrote: Given that it's been around for at least 6 years (I spotted it in a May 1998 post on usenet) I don't think FOSS is going anywhere. I liked OSS better, but then several companies decided offering high-dollar licenses to their code made them open source software and diluted any meaning that expression had. Perhaps we need a new one.. NBSOSS.. No BS Open Source Software... :) How about ROSS: Real Open Source Software? -- Kelson Vibber SpeedGate Communications www.speed.net
Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matt Kettler wrote: | I liked OSS better, but then several companies decided offering | high-dollar licenses to their code made them open source software and | diluted any meaning that expression had. Actually, I believe the Free in FOSS was motivated by Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, which has a somewhat different definition of free software. The FSF is referring more to freedom in terms of restrictions on redistribution and use than strictly monetary definitions. The free software and open source camps have been at each other's throats for years now, squabbling over ideological distinctions, and I think FOSS emerged as a generic term to describe both. - -- Robert LeBlanc [EMAIL PROTECTED] Renaissoft, Inc. Maia Mailguard http://www.maiamailguard.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBXIicGmqOER2NHewRAlDqAJsGJOn/4MzKXPNJUxnao+yTulSy7ACgnRY1 lxiBlWyMDDv9Z5HUHxNnn1o= =sQB3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: 2.6 - 3.0 migration questions
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 06:01:05PM -0400, Ben Rosengart wrote: 1. Deprecated directives. If a configuration includes the deprecated rewrite_subject directive, will spamd barf? Or ignore it? Or something else? What about spamassassin? Heya Ben.. long time no speak : I have a bunch of deprecated directives in my config, and it hasn't caused any problems for me yet. It's not barfing - just shows up as ignored if you run in debug mode. debug: config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: rewrite_subject 0 debug: config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: report_header 1 debug: config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: use_terse_report 1 debug: config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: defang_mime 0 3. Deprecated command-line options. Will the options deprecated after 2.6 be ignored, or will they cause failures? What about options previously deprecated, like '-S'? Looks like (from a quick test) an error is sent to stderr. drama% spamassassin -S The -S option has been deprecated and is no longer supported, ignoring.
