Re: Updating scanners and filters in Debian stable (3.1)
[ What part of "do no reply to my email but to the list, since i am
subscribed" you did not understand? ]
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 01:00:39PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Jesus Climent <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > But again, that might be just me.
> What you are saying should apply to any package in Debian; nothing
> about it justifies the idea that virus scanners should be treated
> specially. The argument you give would apply to the latest emacs, or
> gcc, or mozilla, or any other package whatsoever.
No, It does not.
2.20 became useless because spammers reacted to most of the rules developed,
since it did not have any learning engine. It needed new rules, new rules
needed new functions in the core code (not just rules updates) and new
functions needed new perl libraries with new versions. To use those libraries
you needed new core code, which basically meant having the whole 2.4x
Repeat the same process until the integration of bayes.
After bayes, spammers introduced the pollution idea, which basically needed
new code to clean the garbage words from the mail, which needed new functions,
Now you tell me that ssh has become unusable, and that to get it usable again
you need to backport things that change the core of the system...
Talking about ssh/pam/opie, i needed One Time Passwords in a woody machine.
With the Woody packages you kind of get it, but there is no advertisement of
the actual seed you need. Well, it is not user-friendly, but is not as useless
> But what you are instead arguing is that virus scanners should be
> exempted from the same rules as every other package, for things which
> have nothing to do with the fact that they are virus scanners.
Not true. What i am suggesting is to create a policy and infrastructure to
have a possibility to get an archive within the debian frame and umbrella for
the users to be ablr to point at it and get updates for useless packages which
are distributed in the stable release. Similar to stable point releases, but
with a more dynamic policy that allows inclusion of packages that otherwise
will not make it to R.X with X>0 releases.
I am not arguing (at least not yet) about a possible change in the policy to
allow such packages to get to stable point releases.
Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.4.27|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69
The world doesn't just disappear when you close your eyes, does it?
--Leonard Shelby (Memento)