> Bret Miller writes: > > > On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Justin Mason wrote: > > > > jdow writes: > > > > > > >> Nor does it make sense to use a tool, even if supplied > > > with SpamAssassin, > > > >> that is broken for performing updates. > > > > > > > what's the "broken" part? > > > > > > Well, this may not qualify as broken, but I would say it's an > > > undesirable behavior that, upon successful download of the new > > > set of rules, it immediately deletes your old set of rules. > > > What happens if the new set is broken? There's no easy way > > > to revert to the last known good state. > > > > > > I would prefer a system where it downloads every update to a new > > > directory, then just changes a symlink to point to the newest > > > one, leaving the old one in place in case you want to revert. > > > Of course, this would require a system for expiring old updates > > > (since you don't want to have 100 copies of the rules sitting > > > around), but that shouldn't be too hard. > > > > Symlinks aren't so easy when you're trying to be cross-platform. But > > they could easily tgz the ruleset to an archive subfolder > using the old > > version number prior to replacing the rule set... At least for those > > people who are really sensitive about the update process. > Note that the > > rules are only updated if they lint properly first. > > > > You could always add a bz ticket for the feature... > > actually, that's really not a bad idea ;) could you do that?
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5042 > > > I'm just happy that the tool actually works on Windows. > > cool ;) I'm amazed GPG does. I am too, but it works surprisingly well with GPG for Windows. ;) Bret
