Supporting 3.3 and 3.2? (was: Re: low score for ($1.5Million))

[Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>]

On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 15:52 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 3/3/2011 3:06 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:

> > Note though, that your score is on SA 3.3.x, while the OP uses SA 3.2.x.
> > Yes, I can tell this from the scores. :)
> >
> > Major changes between these version are clearly reflected in your score
> > and rules hit. Namely a lot of work by John Hardin to catch exactly such
> > fraud, and the FreeMail plugin now upstream -- with 3.2 it is available
> > as a third-party plugin.
> 
> Could we please make an official project statement that 3.2.x is 
> unsupported and people should really update to 3.3.x?

There is no such decision yet. The 3.2 branch as-is is not unsupported,
just rather stale. Yes, indeed, there *might* be rule and score fixes
still in the pipe. Less so code, but there definitely are some rule
fixes currently in limbo.

Even with officially dropping support for 3.2, there *still* will be
questions regarding 3.2. You can not stop that with any "official"
announcement. Some folks for whatever reason might be stuck to that
branch.

That said, personally, with various Open Source projects, I have never
given up support for old versions. As long as I *can* help people, I
will.

  guenther


-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}

Re: Supporting 3.3 and 3.2?

[Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>]

Sorry for replying to self.

On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 03:36 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Could we please make an official project statement that 3.2.x is 
> > unsupported and people should really update to 3.3.x?
> 
> There is no such decision yet. The 3.2 branch as-is is not unsupported,
> just rather stale. Yes, indeed, there *might* be rule and score fixes
> still in the pipe. Less so code, but there definitely are some rule
> fixes currently in limbo.
> 
> Even with officially dropping support for 3.2, there *still* will be
> questions regarding 3.2. You can not stop that with any "official"
> announcement. Some folks for whatever reason might be stuck to that
> branch.
> 
> That said, personally, with various Open Source projects, I have never
> given up support for old versions. As long as I *can* help people, I
> will.

Even more so, there is a HUGE difference between officially "supporting"
a branch via rule updates, and giving advice in helping fight spam or
using SA features -- regardless of the version.


-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}

Re: Supporting 3.3 and 3.2?

[Edward Prendergast <ed...@netring.co.uk>]

  On 04/03/11 16:10, Dennis German wrote:
> On 3/3/11 10:09 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 03:36 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 15:52 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
>>>> Could we please make an official project statement that 3.2.x is
>>>> unsupported and people should really update to 3.3.x?
>>> That said, personally, with various Open Source projects, I have never
>>> given up support for old versions. As long as I *can* help people, I
>>> will.
>>> Besides, in this particular case, the *real* underlying issue of a 
>>> badly
>>> trained Bayes won't get fixed by updating. Yes, the overall score would
>>> change drastically, as shown, but the training has been rather poor and
>>> won't change over night by updating.
> I would surely use a more recent version of SA if I could.
> My hosting service uses CPanel and Centos and I cannot convince them 
> to upgrade.
>

If you're using cPanel I think you should be able to upgrade to the 
latest version with /scripts /perlinstaller Mail::SpamAssassin - but 
proceed with caution, such a big upgrade could have a host of issues 
with dependencies.

************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on it, any form of reproduction,
dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or
publication of this E-mail message is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify
us immediately. Please also destroy and delete the message from your
computer.
************

Re: Supporting 3.3 and 3.2?

[Dennis German <DG...@Real-World-Systems.com>]

On 3/3/11 10:09 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 03:36 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 15:52 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
>>> Could we please make an official project statement that 3.2.x is
>>> unsupported and people should really update to 3.3.x?
>> That said, personally, with various Open Source projects, I have never
>> given up support for old versions. As long as I *can* help people, I
>> will.
>> Besides, in this particular case, the *real* underlying issue of a badly
>> trained Bayes won't get fixed by updating. Yes, the overall score would
>> change drastically, as shown, but the training has been rather poor and
>> won't change over night by updating.
I would surely use a more recent version of SA if I could.
My hosting service uses CPanel and Centos and I cannot convince them to 
upgrade.

Re: Supporting 3.3 and 3.2?

[Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>]

On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 03:36 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 15:52 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:

> > Could we please make an official project statement that 3.2.x is 
> > unsupported and people should really update to 3.3.x?

> That said, personally, with various Open Source projects, I have never
> given up support for old versions. As long as I *can* help people, I
> will.

Besides, in this particular case, the *real* underlying issue of a badly
trained Bayes won't get fixed by updating. Yes, the overall score would
change drastically, as shown, but the training has been rather poor and
won't change over night by updating.

I should probably stop replying to self now, though. :)


-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}