On Oct 07, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote: > This policy is even not ok for a normal major debian upgrade. We have > exim and exim4, we have inn and inn2 for exactly that reason, and we should > also provide spamassassin and spamassassin3. This doesn't mean that inn supports just about every feature not related to performance which inn2 has, while it's not obvious at all that spamassassin 2.x is still useful right now, and it will be probably not much useful in one year time. This comparison is not really meaningful. -- ciao, | Marco | [8403 inZVh2DDlvmBI]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature