I got nothing but love for you, so here goes ;) ......
These are MY OPINIONS, and may or may not represent the opinions of SARE as a whole.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:04 AM
> To: Spamassassin Users List
> Subject: Re: breaking out: thinking abt the 'sa-update *VS*
> rdj' thread
> .. .
>
>
> I was debating whether or not to get involved with this thread, and it
> looks like the original issue that Richard was concerned
> about has been
> addressed so that's good. However, my other issue with the thread so
> far comes from the misleading or otherwise incorrect information being
> presented which I'll try to respond to below.
Never debate getting into a discussion with me. Its all good.
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 12:26:08PM -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
> > Ok, no. SARE and the official SA are worlds apart. SARE has
> been setup to be
> > QUICK and accurate. SA is accurate. SARE wants to get good
> rules out when
> > they are needed. Now saupdate make the DELIVERY of that
> possible. But the
> > creation of rules in the official method of SA is... please
> pardon me... a
> > clusterfsck!
>
> Chris! I'm surprised to hear you spreading this misinformation.
> I don't really see how the project's rule development is a
> clusterfsck.
> People commit rules for testing, they get tested, if they're
> good they're
> put in an update. What's the problem?
1) Manpower. You just don't have enough people devoted to rules. Not your fault. And solving this, would not help. Beacuse of #2...
2) Open community. By nature the SA project has to be open. That means public corpus, public discussion lists, and public test results. SARE woould not be as good if we had spammers watching our every move. MAJOR things we do MUST remain private. Our good results, the rules, are made public. And we offer them to anyone.
3) Delivery. You fixed this. I'm very happy about that. EXTREMELY! But the public still thinks SARE should be part of SA, and it was implied that SARE should be doing more to support saupdate. Thats not our baby. We give you our rules.
>
> I also don't understand the quick and "good rules out when they are
> needed" statements. You're implying that the SA project doesn't have
> these goals, which is of course completely incorrect.
That wasn't meant to be a jab at SA. It does sound like it after I reread it. Sorry.
But since SARE's inception, you can't honestly tell me that SA has kept up with SARE's output. Be it quantity or quality.
>
> If you think the system is broken please feel free to chip in and help
> improve it. If you just complain and that's it, the problems
> won't get
> solved.
I thought I had. But there is only so far I can go. See #2 above again. SARE has people that work closely with you devs, to keep ME away from you :) So that things try to remain as smooth as possible. We do our thing, give you our best rules, you test, and add to official release. But we can't do what we do if we have to abide by a public open source group rules.
I'm not easy to work with. Ask Jeff Chan :) (And he is a super nice guy!)
* SNIP lic talk*
> I haven't looked into what it would take to make the current
> SARE rules
> part of SA, it could be a lot, it could be a little, I wouldn't know
> the specifics. However, it's trivial to make new rules part of SA --
> publish them under the ASL or even better imo via the SA project.
But for what end? SARE gives you our best rules to be added. So what would we gain by becoming part of SA. Seems we would lose more having to be more open about what we do.
>
> Frankly, I don't understand the issue here anyway. Sometimes things
> worth doing require effort. If our goals are the same, which
> I believe
> is fighting spam which in itself is a difficult task, why shy
> away from
> it because it may be hard?
We have the same goals. SARE gives you are best. Why must it be more? We have active members that work with you all the time.
>
> > RDJ allows you to get new rules, days maybe hours after a
> new spam sign is
> > found. And these are TESTED! Not just thrown in.
>
> I'm not sure what you're implying, that SA rules are not
> tested and just
> thrown in updates randomly?
LOL after rereading that it does sound like I meant that. I assure you I did not. I meant that OUR rules are tested even though they are quickly released. It was not meant to reflect on SA's testing abilities at all.
>
> FWIW, sa-update lets people "get new rules, days maybe hours after a
> new spam sign is found. And these are TESTED! Not just thrown in."
Point taken ;)
> > Being a closed group gives us some abilities that the
> > SA project will never have.
>
> Such as? I think there some assumptions are being made that aren't
> necessarily true.
open corpus vs closed. Live feed testing vs overnight GA runs. No public eyes in our discussion lists. Incredibly easy rule testing tools vs GA runs. People in different parts of the industry more inclined to help and provide info simply because of anonimity. Cross project benefits, again due to anonimity.
> > So you have 2 completely seperate ideals of rules. The
> method of which you
> > choose, and how you aquire is up to you.
>
> This doesn't really make a lot of sense Chris. The SA
> project wants to get
> good rules out fast. SARE, from what you've stated, wants to
> get good rules
> out fast. How are those "completely separate ideals of rules"?
Well this has already been solved, hasn't it. The main point was that saupdate is not SARE's baby. We give our best rules to you guys. What you do with them, or how you distribute them is your choice.
The question might be, what exactly does the SA project want of SARE? All we have to offer is rules, and we already give those up freely.
If any of this seems cranky, I'm sorry. I've been in an air cast and crutches since monday.
I like pain, but when it stops me from driving my car, I get anoyed.
Tip: Always wear shoes when playing drunken volleyball on someone's lawn!
--Chris
(Any spelling mistakes are simply there to fool your Bayes filter.)
