> If you are abolutely sure[1] you cannot provide a backwards compatible > "spam" condition with your extensions pretty please simply make it
> available under a different name (spam2) instead of breaking every
> existing installation.
I am not absolutely sure, just pretty much so, in particular if I remove
the "true" option, which nobody proved so far not to be a feature Exim
can perform without additional code already.
> Wearing my Debian maintainer head, I have to add that it would make my
> life absolutely miserable, the "easiest" option for me would be to
> remove your modifiation for the Debian package.
Honestly, I don't care what Debian does. I enjoy free software,
because I am free to use and develop it. So far, nobody expressed
feeling miserable about me hacking the source and distributing patches,
but there is always a first time.
There is probably a reason why exiscan is still a patch instead of an
integral part of Exim. I take patches as what they are, experimental
modifications, development steps. And development is what takes
place here. Exiscan is unable to use multiple SA servers, because you
can not specify the server as part of the ACL. My patch changes that,
because I need it, and you are welcome to contribute to the development
process in a constructive way.
I do not force anybody using my code. If you don't like it, then rewrite
it, or have people download the source, apply the patch and wonder why
it is not in the package, as a bunch does right now, according to the
downloads of it. Either way, not my problem.
How about you providing a patch that introduces attribute-value pairs,
so we can specify a timeout in future, too, in order to rather delivering
mail unscanned than deferring it if the scanner is down, for those who
prefer that? It would break compatibility at least only once, and for a
better reason than my code.
> [1] Still missing a reply on
> <20031011153331.GA10829@???>.
I did not intentionally miss to answer it. Please mail it again, on
the list or private.
