[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SpamAssassin

This one time, at band camp, Jason Self said:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-volatile/2006/06/msg00003.html
> Sorry; I should have clarified: I wasn't wondering if version 3.1 of
> SpamAssassin could be integrated into volatile as it's already in
> sloppy and I am quite happy to pull it from there. What I was
> wondering is when it'll progress beyond 3.1.
> IMHO, if volatile and/or sloppy start stagnating at a particular
> version, it's no better than Debian stable. (Wasn't volatile created
> as a way around the Debian policy surrounding stable to keep up with
> such packages anyway? Isn't that it's purpose?)
> "Some packages aim at fast moving targets like spam filtering and
> virus scanning, and even via using updated virus patterns, this
> doesn't really work for the full time of a stable release."

Yes, SA 3.1 is in unstable, we should really think about including it in
volatile (at least IMHO).  Aba, zobel - any thoughts?
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: