In message <m0wWVA9-000idrC@???>, tron@??? writes:
> Hmmm. There are two issues here: configurability and usability.
> Requiring that all users separately configure a general mechanism to
> meet the same goals seems silly. Usability requires that there be some
> common base (code or configurations) that users can enable easily to
> get policies that other people have carefully thought out.
Hmmm, that's an interesting idea. If I understand what you're suggesting,
policies ought to be components, and individual users should be able to
pick and choose and mix and match whichever policies they want, to create
a tailored package that implements their individual requirement. In turn,
each component may itself be a package of more primitive components, like
basic header line matching rules, and typically an expert would carefully
craft combinations of primitives for selection by end users. So, at the
lowest level of expertise, a beginner might trivially pick just the bog
standard "nospam" component, while more competent users might take that
component and various others and combine them in some individual way, and
experts could create totally original policies if they wished to do so.
That's very much in the spirit of object-oriented design. I think it
merits investigation. It certainly has the potential to place choice
in the hands of the end user while also harnessing the skills of experts.
Sounds good.
Rich.
--
########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available
# galacta # Email : rich@??? 158.152.156.137
# ->demon # Web : http://www.galacta.demon.co.uk - temp page only
# ->ampr # AMPR : rich@g7exm[.uk].ampr.org 44.131.164.1 BBS:GB7MSW
# ->NTS # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, kernel, O-O, C++, SoftEng, Nano
########### More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London
