Re: SA 3.2.3 available (for test purpose)
Matus UHLAR - fantomas <email@example.com> writes:
> On 06.11.07 09:48, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> I wonder if spamassassin is volatile material? It certainly fits
>> backports.org (and I use the backport on production), but I have always
>> thought of volatile as something with exactly the same importance and
>> connotation as main.
> Imho, SA fulfills the requirements for volatile without any problem. The
> backports are here afaik for different reason.
>> IMO, it is best to leave stuff like spamassassin out of volatile.
> I disagree here.
AOL. spamassassin is one of the very few packages that needs to be
updated to _keep_ its functionality between stable releases, since spam
filtering rules lose their effect in time, and new rules often need new
IMHO, this is exactly what volatile is for.
You're probably Moonie yourself