Re: Migrating from SpamAssassin to Bogofilter

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:09:54 -0700
Kip Warner wrote:

> On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 00:37 +0100, RW wrote:

> > But how do you know whether the user *wants* to use the global
> > instance. Think about application servers and shared computers.
> 
> It does not matter. If an MUA wishes to use a global instance, then
> they connect to the system bus. If they wish for a per user instance,
> they connect to the session bus.
> 
> > Why do you even assume spamd would be running on the same host? And
> > not, for example, in a hosted virtual server. 
> 
> I didn't. The actual backend could be on the same machine, a remote
> host, in a virtual server, down in Hades, or on Neptune for all an MUA
> cares.


And hows it going to determine any of the above without user
configuration? All you're doing is exchanging straightforward server
configuration for more arcane configuration.

And if it's such a great idea why aren't mail clients finding mail
servers that way? And why are you singling-out spamd? Does evolution
find bogofilter, dovecot, cyrus, postfix etc by dbus?



> > Not really, almost all of spamd is devoted to managing connections,
> > child processes etc. The classification and mark-up are done in a
> > library call.
> 
> Putting aside for a moment that you are now no longer even in
> agreement with yourself, the point you just raised is not a point in
> your favour. It is actually all the more reason once again to reduce
> the convoluted hoops of the aforesaid with a more sensible migration
> out of the UNIX of the 90s to the contemporary free desktop (.org,
> literally) DBus of 2013. However, there is no technical solution to
> an attitude problem.

That's twaddle, but my point was that if you don't like spamd, call the
library from your own code - as other projects do.
_______________________________________________
Bogofilter mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.bogofilter.org/mailman/listinfo/bogofilter