Re: problem with bbdb whitelist filtering

[Martin Monsorno <monsorno-usenet@exolution.de>]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, monsorno-nospam@gmx.de wrote:
>
>> I expected spam.el now to do the following: for every mail in the
>> list if the sender is in the BBDB, add a header 'X-Spammer: white:
>> From: Pit <peter.paul@mary.de>' if not, do nothing I don't want
>> spam.el to do anything more with the mail.  No more extraordinary
>> intelligent spam checks, no moving of mails.  Just insert the
>> header, and let my mail splitting go further.  - The following split
>> rules should then use the inserted header to move the messages to
>> several groups depending on several rules, and the messages without
>> this header to different groups.
>
> spam-split does not currently modify messages.  I don't plan to add
> that capability myself since I don't need it, and it may break spam
> autodetection in read-only groups.

Aargh, uh, sorry!  I analyzed my mail after enabling spam.el, and I
noticed the described X-Spammer header in the good mails.  So I
thought, spam.el inserts this after checkgin.  I'm really sorry for
this!

Talking to our sysadmin, he told me, that the spam checking software
on our mail server inserts these headers, but not to all mails, which
is another problem, but not about Gnus ...

>
> You can write your own wrapper around spam-split which sets
> spam-split-symbolic-return to t.  That will return 'spam if the
> message is believed to be spam; you can then do what you want with
> the message.  In particular in your case, you can do (assuming your
> function has been called from the splitting rules):
>
> (let* ((spam-split-symbolic-return t)
>        (ret (spam-split 'spam-use-BBDB-exclusive)))
>  (when (eq ret 'spam)
>    ;; insert header maybe
>   ))
>

I will think about this solution, but before this, I should re-read
some sections of the lisp-manual ...  :-/

>> 1) Is it possible to do the mail-splitting described?  
>
> I think I'll need to see your current rules to tell you, and the exact
> sequence you want to happen.  Maybe it can be done.

OK, then, the splitting rules (the current, wrong ones) are this:

,----
| (setq nnmail-split-methods 'nnmail-split-fancy
|       nnmail-split-fancy '(|
| ("Gnus-Warning" ".*duplicate.*" "duplicates")
| (to "ding@\\(gnus\\.org\\|hpc.uh.edu\\)" "gnus-mailing-list") 
| (: spam-split)
| ("X-Spammer" "white" (|
|   (to "Martin.Monsorno.*@exolution\\.de" "work")
|   (to "monsorno@gmx\\.de" "private")
|   ))
| (to "Martin.Monsorno.*@exolution\\.de" "work-spam")
| (to "monsorno@gmx\\.de" "private-spam")
| "unsplitted-mail"
| ))
`----

So I want to do spam-checking after processing some
mailing-list-messages.  What I want to achieve is, that spam sent to
my account at work should go to a different folder than spam sent to
my private address.  Is this possible?  I looked into the manual
again, but it doesn't seem so.

>
>> I.e. does spam.el only inserts a header marking it as white, and let
>> my following split rules do the rest?
>
> No, and I'm not sure why you think it does.  It doesn't say that in
> the manual, does it?  Should it be mentioned specifically?

Maybe, just a word, that spam.el 'does not modify the checked message
in any way'.  This would maybe help make things more clear to people
like me, ahem.  

Sorry, again.  And thanks for your help,

-- 
Martin