The rules sets are updated pretty frequently - that's where the front lines of the battle are. As others have said, the engine is pretty mature.

The question, I guess, is what do you want spamassassin to do that can't be expressed with the current rules language?

Wave action means a foot and a half above the king tide mark can really suck in a lot of places. Sandy places are going to feel it more than San Francisco (one city near me would just about vanish if that projection is correct). Add in that a lot of places on flood plains are on land that is sinking anyway and the high tide plus flood situation gets a bit worse.
It's something to keep in mind for disaster planning anyway. How steep is the land at the back of the bay? Maybe that's what it's about?

Because of bribery, often misspelt as "lobbying".

But if it snows that idea will crash :)
Large bits of connected floating stuff is just like airships - a really cool idea until the weather starts getting rough. For example, pontoon bridges are a hell of a lot cheaper than any other kind but they usually don't last very long.

It's a major port where the biggest river on the North American continent hits the sea. Where else do you put it?

Yes, used greylisting for a couple of days and now am well aware of an inherent flaw that could cost the people who use it their jobs. Consider how it works and then consider that people at the top of organisations like to think of email as a nearly instant communications system and really don't like it when that last minute tender they've been working on all night gets delayed for half an hour (as is typical, or several hours with insane greylisting settings I've seen used) just because the person they sent it to has never had email from them before. It's a nice idea from an IT perspective but from a business perspective it sucks dog balls. A lot of places have far too many of those edge cases to make it worthwhile. Other places are more slow moving and it just doesn't matter if the most urgent email arrives a few hours late, but good luck trying to explain why if you're not in one of those places :)
Reducing the time in greylisting does reduce the potential damage but then it's a balance between the patience of the people that expect instant communications and the patience of spammers. While most spambots only tried once in 2005 things have moved on since - greylisting is well behind the spam arms race.

grey listing doesn't stop legitimate servers

It stops them long enough for it to be a problem in enough cases that I kept getting a lot of "why doesn't X have my email yet" phone calls when greylisting first became popular. I then ran it myself for a while to see what was going on and to see where some of those who were using it were applying frankly insane settings, and how even less tight settings were problematic on occasion.
Sometimes it's better to look at entire systems to resolve problems instead of a tightly focused technical only approach. If you guys are going to call yourselves "engineers" you should act like them and consider entire systems instead of single bolts or what the manual tells you to do. Cute tricks that fuck around with communication policy shouldn't be used unless you can take the consequences of changing communication policy. If it's going to put your boss on the carpet in front of the CEO you have a duty to your boss of explaining to them why you are doing it.

and I haven't lost any real mail due to Gmail's filtering.

Email from people at one site I look after used to vanish into a black hole at gmail until I convinced them to replace the GIF of their corporate logo attached to all their emails with a PNG version. That's some real mail lost due to gmail's filtering.

IMHO it's better to do the filtering somewhere where you have access to the stuff that is discarded. False positives may be rare now but they still happen. That's why I like stuff such as MailScanner (open source wrapper for spamassassin+your choice of commercial antivirus and/or clamav+other open source stuff+distributed updating rulesets) run on site. There's plenty of others that give you this function including some of the commercial "appliances" and outsourced email filtering.

Also blocking mail from dynamic IPs is a good idea.

It used to be the case that one IP address I have a mail server on would get blocked for a couple of days every year because some idiot at a blacklist would load in an obsolete list of dynamic IP addresses from what is now a decade ago. As IPv4 addresses diminish expect the lists of dynamic addresses to become outdated very quickly.

There is still stuff going on in the dev version with an svn commit listed on August 30 2013.
http://spamassassin.markmail.org/search/?q=#query:%20list%3Aorg.apache.spamassassin.commits+page:1+state:facets

Tyson is a brilliant theoretical physicist and he should probably continue studying theoretical physics rather than pontificating on whether a billionaire who owns and designs products for multiple successful companies understands the risks and rewards of space exploration. When Neil deGrasse Tyson launches his own successful businesses and starts designing rocket ships that successfully deliver supplies to the international space station, he'll be slightly more qualified to hold an opinion on the subject.

Elon Musk is an educated, trained physicist. He's started multiple successful businesses. He's designed and built electric cars that actually work for real people and that are built like tanks. He's designed and built rockets and capsules that carry out successful missions in space at a fraction of the cost of NASA and everyone else. He's doing what virtually nobody else is doing: taking risks. He's the next Steve Jobs and he doesn't want to make your music player pretty; he wants to go to Mars.

If I were a betting man, I most certainly wouldn't be betting against Elon Musk. That's a stupid bet.

Is there even a working fusion reactor in place yet? If not, the idea is moot.

Working, yes. Commerical? No, there's not really enough fuel. Practical? Not really - it's not commercially viable due to the lack of fuel.

But, perhaps what you're illuminating here is that it might be the same venture that needs to do both parts of the work. They'd probably have to find a jurisdiction without oil company influence to be based out of and then find a launch facility that would be friendly. I'm not sure which one that might be.

NICNET (http://www.nic.in) has long been used in India for government mails and official data. You literally have dedicated VSAT connections etc. to it in offices, and it is a separate network in itself.

The Indian army too for obvious reasons, just like its counterparts everywhere, maintains its own nationwide network, and does not allows internet connections to it.

All they are asking is, that officials use these network, which are NOT public, instead of allowing the data to pass over any backbone that US has control over. And thus no classified data is expected to ever hit any backbone that is in US control.

And believe me when I say it's not easy for me to be in favor of -- I am against global government in general. Completely.

So you probably want a global insurance pool, not a regulatory agency. The market forces would actually support this - potential payouts are so large that a global pool may be necessary.

I think Russia would be the experts, not the US.

Yes, and they'd probably charge less too. The current may not be flowing their way, but their oceans are much closer to the problem as well.

USA's authoritarian, Orwellian stance is hurting American companies' ability to compete in the global market, domestic and international. It hurts the American economy.

I'm not sure who the subject of 'missing the point' is here, so I can't address that, but yeah - I suspect India knows that by doing this, they may spur some competitive enterprises in India to fill the gap. I'm all for world trade and such, but for Pete^W Lakshmi's sake, India's own government should be patronizing its businesses, not foreign corporations.

By insisting it's too risky and too expensive and can't be quantified, he's just perpetuating false reasons not to go into space ... by anyone.

He's good with astronomy and communications. We can give him a pass for not being very sharp on economics.