El lun, 29-11-2004 a las 21:40 -0800, Joe Kelsey escribió: > > >From my reading of the source file, Evolution actually emulates a spamc > rather than actually calling spamc. In other words, Evolution talks > directly to spamd. > > However, that is not the real problem. The real problem is how does > evolution deal with sa-learn. There is absolutely no documentation or > any discussion on this mailing list that I can find which discusses the > actual interface to sa-learn that they chose to implement. > > By spending hours looking through the mess of source code, I finally > stumbled across the actual part of the program which invokes sa-learn. > Not only did you chose the absolutely worst designed program with the > absolutely worst designed (or rather not designed) interface to use for > evolution, you did it without documenting your own usage, forcing anyone > who wanted to use a better designed program to hunt through undocumented > source code looking for the bits that they need. A very simple one or > two paragraphs with the actual code listing showing how and why sa-learn > is invoked with different arguments would allow anyone to insert their > own interface. > > As it stands, it looks like what someone has to do is reimplement spamd > since evolution pretends to be spamc. Then you have to figure out the > idiotic sa-learn interface. Then you have to hope that whoever is in > charge doesn't decide to fix this mess with a real design. > Hey, come on, calm down! This is free software: if you don't like it, you can change it! I think that if you enable evolution for using another antispam engine, developers could include your patches into the program. Constructive critics are always better than destructive ones! Greetings -- David Marín Carreño <dmarin dyr es> Desarrollo y Recursos, S.L.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature