You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@spamassassin.apache.org by jm...@apache.org on 2004/09/30 00:21:06 UTC
svn commit: rev 47510 - spamassassin/trunk
Author: jm
Date: Wed Sep 29 15:21:05 2004
New Revision: 47510
Modified:
spamassassin/trunk/UPGRADE
Log:
doc fix: note MIMEDefang min version requirement
Modified: spamassassin/trunk/UPGRADE
==============================================================================
--- spamassassin/trunk/UPGRADE (original)
+++ spamassassin/trunk/UPGRADE Wed Sep 29 15:21:05 2004
@@ -9,10 +9,12 @@
modules as they may have changed from old versions. The INSTALL
document has the modules and version requirements listed.
-- SpamAssassin 3.0.0 has a significantly different API (Application
- Program Interface) from the 2.x series of code. This means that if you
- use SpamAssassin through a third-party utility (milter, etc,) you need
- to make sure you have an updated version which supports 3.0.0.
+- SpamAssassin 3.0.0 has a significantly different API (Application Program
+ Interface) from the 2.x series of code. This means that if you use
+ SpamAssassin through a third-party utility (milter, etc,) you need to make
+ sure you have an updated version which supports 3.0.0, such as:
+
+ - MIMEDefang: version 2.42 or later.
- The --auto-whitelist, --whitelist and -a options for "spamd" and
"spamassassin" to turn on the auto-whitelist have been removed and
Re: svn commit: rev 47510 - spamassassin/trunk
Posted by Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>.
jm@apache.org wrote:
>> + - MIMEDefang: version 2.42 or later.
Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com> writes:
> FWIW, I completely disagree with doing this. A) It will give the
> impression that we support these programs (I assume there will
> eventually be more), B) How are we verifying that the version listed
> actually works? C) Is someone going to test every single release
> against each program we have listed to make sure the information is
> still valid? D) What criteria are we using to decide which programs
> get listed?
>
> Just my $.02.
+0.5 what Michael said.
It seems like this belongs on the Wiki, especially since third-party
users of SA are going to trail our releases and because it's not our
responsibility.
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan ApacheCon! 13-17 November (3 SpamAssassin
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ http://www.apachecon.com/ sessions & more)
Re: svn commit: rev 47510 - spamassassin/trunk
Posted by Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com>.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 10:21:06PM -0000, jm@apache.org wrote:
> +
> + - MIMEDefang: version 2.42 or later.
>
FWIW, I completely disagree with doing this. A) It will give the
impression that we support these programs (I assume there will
eventually be more), B) How are we verifying that the version listed
actually works? C) Is someone going to test every single release
against each program we have listed to make sure the information is
still valid? D) What criteria are we using to decide which programs
get listed?
Just my $.02.
Michael