[gentoo-dev] Fwd: Bogofilter - 0.16.0 - Code Clean-up Release - Phase 1

[gentoo-dev] Fwd: Bogofilter - 0.16.0 - Code Clean-up Release - Phase 1

[Stroller]

Hi all,

There doesn't seem to be much interest in keeping the Portage tree 
up-to-date with the current releases of Bogofilter, however development 
of it is moving quite rapidly & it is at a stage now at which I believe 
the ebuild *should* be updated, if it is intended to remain in Portage.

 From what I have heard of Spamassasin it uses several methods to detect 
spam (including blacklists based upon the reports of other users?), and 
I choose Bogofilter because it's relies purely upon Bayesian analysis 
of MY spam messages. So I would like to see Bogofilter remain current 
within Gentoo.

I have forwarded below an email from Bogofilter's maintainer to the 
Bogofilter mailing list giving some outlines of why I think an update 
is needed at present. It's particularly worth noting that the present 
version of Bogofilter within the tree (0.13.7.3) uses two separate 
wordlists for spam & ham. Current releases use by default a *single* 
wordlist of tokens with a pair of spam/ham counts - the separate 
wordlists are depreciated, and the code will be removed in 0.17.x, so I 
think Bogofilter-0.16 may be a desirable step to reduce problems during 
`emerge --update`s in the future.

If any interested &/or helpful dev could take a look at 
<http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37017> I would be much 
indebted. To give you a head-start on the New Year's bug-fixing 
league-table, I think that if Bogofilter-0.16.0 were to enter the 
Portage tree, this bug <http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31800> 
could also be closed.

Many thanks for your time & bandwidth,

Stroller.



Begin forwarded message:

> From: David Relson <relson@osagesoftware.com>
> Date: January 1, 2004 10:55:19 pm GMT
> To: bogofilter <bogofilter@aotto.com>
> Subject: Bogofilter - 0.16.0 - Code Clean-up Release - Phase 1
>
> Greetings,
>
> Bogofilter-0.16.0 is the new "current" release.  It is officially the
> "Code Clean-up Release - Phase 1".  Unofficially it's known as the
> "deprecated code release".
>
> The main change is that a lot of old compatibility code is now
> bracketed by "#ifdef ENABLE_DEPRECATED_CODE" and "#endif" statements.
> By default bogofilter will build with this code disabled.  If you need
> it, use "configure --enable-deprecated-code".
>
> A second change is that the binary rpms are now built with BerkeleyDB
> 4.1.  If you have an older version of BerkeleyDB, you will need to 
> build
> bogofilter from source.  Configure option "--with-libdb-prefix={path}"
> will likely be needed.
>
> File RELEASE.NOTES-0.16 has details of the changes.  It is recommended
> reading!!
>
> A new file, diff.01513.0160.bz2 has a context diff ("diff -c") between
> the previous stable release, bogofilter-0.15.13, and this release.
> ...
> Happy New Year!
>
> David
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> FAQ: http://bogofilter.sourceforge.net/bogofilter-faq.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: bogofilter-unsubscribe@aotto.com
> For summary digest subscription: bogofilter-digest-subscribe@aotto.com
> For more commands, e-mail: bogofilter-help@aotto.com
>
>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Whups! IGNORE ME! Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: Bogofilter - 0.16.0 - Code Clean-up Release - Phase 1

[Stroller]

On Jan 2, 2004, at 4:31 pm, Stroller wrote:
>
> There doesn't seem to be much interest in keeping the Portage tree 
> up-to-date with the current releases of Bogofilter, however 
> development of it is moving quite rapidly & it is at a stage now at 
> which I believe the ebuild *should* be updated, if it is intended to 
> remain in Portage.

Excuse me. I just did an `emerge sync` - I intended to do that BEFORE I 
posted but, erm... my finger must've slipped - and I see there are 
ebuilds in the tree for bogofilter-0.14.5.4 & bogofilter-0.15.13. I 
think these must've appeared in the last week or two.

My apologies for clogging up the list,

Stroller.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Whups! IGNORE ME! Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: Bogofilter - 0.16.0 - Code Clean-up Release - Phase 1

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1218 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:53:21 +0000
Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

> 
> On Jan 2, 2004, at 4:31 pm, Stroller wrote:
> >
> > There doesn't seem to be much interest in keeping the Portage tree 
> > up-to-date with the current releases of Bogofilter, however 
> > development of it is moving quite rapidly & it is at a stage now at 
> > which I believe the ebuild *should* be updated, if it is intended to
> > 
> > remain in Portage.
> 
> Excuse me. I just did an `emerge sync` - I intended to do that BEFORE
> I posted but, erm... my finger must've slipped - and I see there are 
> ebuilds in the tree for bogofilter-0.14.5.4 & bogofilter-0.15.13. I 
> think these must've appeared in the last week or two.
> 
> My apologies for clogging up the list,


I'll just come along here and say that it'd be a bad idea to introduce
the early 0.16 releases to the tree, as said. they break things , and
when the cleanup stabilizes it'd be a better contestant.

Remember folks,  ~ doesn't mean "broken software" . it means "testing
ebuilds" 


//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bogofilter - 0.16.0 - Code Clean-up Release - Phase 1

[Torsten Veller]

* Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk>:

> so I think Bogofilter-0.16 may be a desirable step to reduce problems
> during `emerge --update`s in the future.

Bogofilter-0.15.13 is in ~ARCH since 29/12. It would be great if
bogofilter-0.15.13 becomes stable as it is announced stable by the
bogofilter devs.

One problem is the new app-text/xmlto dependency:
bogofilter: 
KEYWORDS="~x86 ~ppc ~sparc ~alpha ~hppa ~mips ~arm ~amd64 ~ia64 ~ppc64"
xmlto:
KEYWORDS="x86 ~ppc ~sparc"


> I think that if Bogofilter-0.16.0 were to enter the Portage tree, this
> bug <http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31800> could also be
> closed.

I think 0.16 can wait a little until 0.15.13 is in ARCH. (0.16 has no
new features. it is only cleaning.)

-- 
.:   Regards Torsten   |      According to the latest official figures,      :.
.:                     |     43% of all statistics are totally worthless.    :.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bogofilter - 0.16.0 - Code Clean-up Release - Phase 1

[Mike Gardiner]

On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 01:06, Torsten Veller wrote:
> * Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk>:
> 
...
> One problem is the new app-text/xmlto dependency:
> bogofilter: 
> KEYWORDS="~x86 ~ppc ~sparc ~alpha ~hppa ~mips ~arm ~amd64 ~ia64 ~ppc64"
> xmlto:
> KEYWORDS="x86 ~ppc ~sparc"
> 

This shouldn't prevent the newer version of bogofilter being included,
with 'reduced' KEYWORDS="~x86 ~ppc ~sparc". An updated package shouldn't
be held off for _all_ archs, just because a dependency is missing on
some of them. It should be perfectly feasible to add bogofilter, and
then mark it ~<arch> once xmlto is in ~<arch> (and it's been tested of
course).

Besides that, testing xmlto is easy anyway (just remember to mark it
~<arch> before <arch> please)

Thanks,

Mike.
(Obz)




--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: Bogofilter - 0.16.0 - Code Clean-up Release - Phase 1

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

Stroller wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There doesn't seem to be much interest in keeping the Portage tree
> up-to-date with the current releases of Bogofilter, however
> development of it is moving quite rapidly & it is at a stage now at
> which I believe the ebuild *should* be updated, if it is intended to
> remain in Portage.
>
>  From what I have heard of Spamassasin it uses several methods to
> detect spam (including blacklists based upon the reports of other
> users?), and I choose Bogofilter because it's relies purely upon
> Bayesian analysis of MY spam messages. So I would like to see
> Bogofilter remain current within Gentoo.
>
> I have forwarded below an email from Bogofilter's maintainer to the
> Bogofilter mailing list giving some outlines of why I think an update
> is needed at present. It's particularly worth noting that the present
> version of Bogofilter within the tree (0.13.7.3) uses two separate
> wordlists for spam & ham. Current releases use by default a *single*
> wordlist of tokens with a pair of spam/ham counts - the separate
> wordlists are depreciated, and the code will be removed in 0.17.x, so
> I think Bogofilter-0.16 may be a desirable step to reduce problems
> during `emerge --update`s in the future.
>
> If any interested &/or helpful dev could take a look at
> <http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37017> I would be much
> indebted. To give you a head-start on the New Year's bug-fixing
> league-table, I think that if Bogofilter-0.16.0 were to enter the
> Portage tree, this bug <http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31800>
> could also be closed.
>
> Many thanks for your time & bandwidth,
>
> Stroller.
>

You could setup SpamAssassin to function in an identical way to bogofilter
by weighting all other spam criteria to 0.0 points.  I found bogofilter to
be a pain to use and it is resource intensive.  However, it has the obvious
potential if it could ever be daemonized.

Tom Veldhouse


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list