Hello Loren,
Thursday, September 30, 2004, 6:23:46 PM, you wrote:
>> 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 *b
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 yo
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 08:58:48AM -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
>
> 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Burger writes:
> 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
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
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-Base
> 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 sy
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:
> > G
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 a
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.
Kelson wrote:
How about ROSS: Real Open Source Software?
Bitchin' Open Source Software: BOSS
:-)
Kelson wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Perhaps we need a new one.. NBSOSS.. No BS Open Source Software... :)
How about ROSS: Real Open Source Software?
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I came up with a few funnier ones:
TOSS - True Open Source Software.
FLOSS - Freely Licenced Open Source Software
U-D
-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 motivat
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
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
>-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
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
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 UPG
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 spam
Some options kick you in the face.
Such as -a for spamd which will prevent it from starting.
I guess we can add in a wiki entry for upgrades from 3.0 instead of
forcing the dev's to document every nit-picking thing.
Some options are just ignored, eg, no backward compatibility.
bayes autolearn cha
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 bu
At 06:01 PM 9/29/2004, 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?
Based on past experience they generally don't cause problems on their ow
1. Deprecated directives. If a configuration includes the
deprecated "rewrite_subject" directive, will spamd barf? Or
ignore it? Or something else? What about spamassassin?
2. Spamd/spamc protocol. Will a 2.6 spamc communicate properly with
a 3.0 spamd? What about a 3.0 spamc with a
23 matches
Mail list logo
