[SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Mon Jan 31 07:38:27 CET 2005


On Sunday, January 30, 2005, 8:03:37 PM, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Oh crap.  It's *me* that's confused and I'm sure I'll get 5 replies from
> people who don't read all their mail before sending replies telling me
> that.  Anyway, disregard my last message.

> Adding JP to WS was clearly a horrible idea to begin with.  However,
> wasting a bit on this is silly (and I think that's what I'm reacting to
> here), especially considering that Henry and I have been discussing a
> revamp of the SURBL rules where source would not matter and the number
> of bits set would matter -- we'd have to special case this.

Not to worry, I had to remove my foot from my mouth before
I could speak too.  ;-)

I think we have all the cases covered.   After we remove
JP from WS, anyone lacking a separate JP rule and not upgrading
to 3.1 can simply add a JP rule, as we've advised from the
beginning of JP.  It's just that such a change did not get
into the 3.0 release.

Jeff C.



More information about the Discuss mailing list