Re: Default Plugins?

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

Matt Kettler writes:
> I'll agree this isn't always clear if you're just going on the filenames
> alone. I've seen a lot of folks, even package maintainers, make this
> mistake. As others have suggested, this is documented in the UPGRADE file.
> 
> --------
> - There are now multiple files read to enable plugins in the 
> /etc/mail/spamassassin directory; previously only one, "init.pre" was 
> read.  Now both "init.pre", "v310.pre", and any other files ending   in
> ".pre" will be read.  As future releases are made, new plugins will be
> added to new files named according to the release they're added in.
> --------
> 
> Perhaps that text should be added as a comment to each .pre file to
> avoid future confusion.

Good idea. +1

--j.

Re: Default Plugins?

["Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>]

Justin Mason wrote:
> Matt Kettler writes:
>> I'll agree this isn't always clear if you're just going on the filenames
>> alone. I've seen a lot of folks, even package maintainers, make this
>> mistake. As others have suggested, this is documented in the UPGRADE file.
>>
>> --------
>> - There are now multiple files read to enable plugins in the 
>> /etc/mail/spamassassin directory; previously only one, "init.pre" was 
>> read.  Now both "init.pre", "v310.pre", and any other files ending   in
>> ".pre" will be read.  As future releases are made, new plugins will be
>> added to new files named according to the release they're added in.
>> --------
>>
>> Perhaps that text should be added as a comment to each .pre file to
>> avoid future confusion.
> 
> Good idea. +1

Ditto :)  +1