Re: [Evolution-hackers] spam filtering

[Ettore Perazzoli <ettore ximian com>]

On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 13:24, Radek Doulík wrote:
> I am not wasting time. Making it plugable lets me to define simple API.
> If I don't do it that way, it may be impossible to make it plugable
> later and will cost us more time.

You can define the simple API without having to implement plug-ins. 
Then if it's necessary you can plug-in-ify it later.

You can have a clean design without making it pluggable.

We don't have much time to 2.0.  You have to minimize the risk -- which
doesn't mean doing a crappy job at it, it just means not aiming for
generic blue-sky pluggability when there is no contingent reason for it.

Write the code so that it's easy to add support for different spam
systems, document it, and leave it at that.

Simplicity always pays off.

> >   And right
> > now it's completely pointless given that there are basically only 2
> > filters that people will want to use, and one of them is clearly
> > superior to the other.)
> 
> There are at least 3 major one people are using (bogofilter,
> spamassassin and spamprobe).

Fine, so it's our job to pick the one that works best, and make
Evolution use it.

> Your "pluggability" using gconf keys doesn't seems clean to me. also
> bogofilter is written in C so it may be possible to build plugin which
> will not need exec bogofilter command line tool. Also IIRC spamassassin
> has a library to communicate with spamassassin's daemon.

Then let's make it library based, I don't care.  But focus on making
Spamassassin work best.

> > And it's also pointless because Spamassassin is clearly superior to
> > Bogofilter.
> 
> I am not yet sure about this.

This has been discussed before, I don't want to have another argument
about this.

-- 
Ettore Perazzoli <ettore ximian com>