RE: rule secrecy *again* (Re: Well, that didn't take very bloody long)

[Chris Santerre <cs...@MerchantsOverseas.com>]

> 
> ho hum... here we go again. :(

:)  

>Secrecy is *NOT* an essential element of rule development.  It seems
>logical to think it is, but evidence repeatedly demonstrates otherwise.

You know I differ in that opinion. 

>For some spammers, it may _help_ -- but not for all, so it's by no means
>essential.  On the other hand, secrecy damages collaborative development,
>restricting rule refinement and improvement to a secret "cabal".  It's
>antithetical to open source development.

If the rules are openly released, I don't see how its antithetical. Some of
the background work is just done quietly. 

We don't restrict "rule refinement and improvement to a secret "cabal"".
I've helped people on the SATALK list test their rules. And I've had some
offer tweaks to SARE rules. There is no one stopping anyone from writing a
rule and submitting it to SA devs! 

IMHO, all of this could have been avoided if you had just kept the old SA
logo ;) 

Thanks,

Chris Santerre
SysAdmin and Spamfighter
www.rulesemporium.com
www.uribl.com