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 *before*
Kelson wrote:
How about ROSS: Real Open Source Software?
Bitchin' Open Source Software: BOSS
:-)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
-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
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
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
-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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
