Hello George,
Thursday, February 17, 2005, 8:16:21 AM, you wrote:
Fair enough. In this most recent publication of updates to the
70_sare_header*.cf family, 40 rules were added, and 50 rules were
moved from one file to another, including 8 or 9 that were moved from
various files to the archive
Hello George,
Thursday, February 17, 2005, 7:43:27 PM, you wrote:
GG Hi Bob,
And as I said, the equivalent change log for this last update to the
header* files would have been close to 100 lines long. Is that what
you would like to see?
GG I count approximately 35 active cf files in
Hello George,
Wednesday, February 16, 2005, 7:06:16 PM, you wrote:
GG Rather than squelching custom site rules, I think it more
GG appropriate to verbosely report why rules become obsoleted (not
GG necessarily in the new ruleset). Maybe a changes file for each cf
GG file is appropriate? You
Hello George,
Wednesday, February 16, 2005, 9:38:41 PM, you wrote:
GG Even if someone doesn't use RDJ, isn't a 2-10 line commented change log
GG in the cf file worthwhile?
GG RDJ is not just for people who want to submit full trust. It can also
GG be used to help automate distribution of fully
Hello George,
Tuesday, February 15, 2005, 7:29:07 PM, you wrote:
GG On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 02:26:02PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote:
Just a quick note that SARE's header rules files have been updated.
Information concerning these rules files can be found at
Hello Jim,
Saturday, February 12, 2005, 5:12:05 PM, you wrote:
JK danke für die Email vom 13.02.2005 um 00:48
JK Robert Menschel schrieb - wrote:
JK is this only for SA 3.*? Or as well for 2.64?
RM There is one file that does not apply to 2.64
JK and which is it? I can`t see.
Head to
Hello Jim,
Saturday, February 12, 2005, 2:57:06 PM, you wrote:
JK danke für die Email vom 12.02.2005 um 23:26
JK Robert Menschel schrieb - wrote:
Just a quick note that SARE's header rules files have been updated.
Information concerning these rules files can be found at
