* spam.el experiences
@ 2002-11-16 14:54 Andreas Fuchs
2002-11-19 9:09 ` Patch for ifile spam splitting in spam.el (was: Re: spam.el experiences) Andreas Fuchs
2002-11-21 15:39 ` spam.el experiences Ted Zlatanov
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Fuchs @ 2002-11-16 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2686 bytes --]
Hi,
I just tried using spam.el to make dealing with spam easier, but ran
into these problems:
* ifile. I have used ifile to classify my spam&ham; does marking an
article with M-d also process it as a spam article in ifile?
* nnmail-split-methods. Before I had spam.el, I used
(setq nnmail-split-fancy `(|
(: ifile-spam-filter
(|
(: nnmail-split-fancy-with-parent)
;; special cases
(any "plus-linux.de" "plus-linux.de")
(from "HQ.ACM.ORG" "acm")
(from ".*@sil.at" "Mailbox.sil")
(from "mailman-owner@.*" "mailman-reminders")
(to "\\(srfi-.*\\)@srfi\\.schemers\\.org" "scheme.\\1")
(any "\\(srfi-.*\\)@srfi\\.schemers\\.org" "scheme.\\1")
("resent-from" "srfi-37@srfi.schemers.org" "scheme.srfi-37")
("resent-from" "\\(srfi-.*\\)@srfi\\.schemers\\.org" "scheme.\\1")
(any ".*@bugs.debian.org" "debian-bugs")
;; mine
(any ,gnus-ignored-from-addresses "Mailbox")
;; group parameter splitting
(: gnus-group-split-fancy nil t nil)
;;
"Mailbox.misc"))
Now, I use:
nnmail-split-fancy `(|
(: spam-split)
(: nnmail-split-fancy-with-parent)
;; special cases
(any "plus-linux.de" "plus-linux.de")
(from "HQ.ACM.ORG" "acm")
(from ".*@sil.at" "Mailbox.sil")
(from "mailman-owner@.*" "mailman-reminders")
(to "\\(srfi-.*\\)@srfi\\.schemers\\.org" "scheme.\\1")
(any "\\(srfi-.*\\)@srfi\\.schemers\\.org" "scheme.\\1")
("resent-from" "srfi-37@srfi.schemers.org" "scheme.srfi-37")
("resent-from" "\\(srfi-.*\\)@srfi\\.schemers\\.org" "scheme.\\1")
(any ".*@bugs.debian.org" "debian-bugs")
;; to me
(any ,gnus-ignored-from-addresses "Mailbox")
;; group parameter?
(: gnus-group-split-fancy nil t nil)
;;
"Mailbox.misc")
IMHO, these should act identical, but they don't. In fact, I get errors
every time I try to get new mails: "Error in `nnmail-split-methods';
using `bogus' mail group". I tracked the error down as far as I could,
and found out that somewhere down there, an apply gets called with only
one argument. I didn't dare remove the condition-case statement from
nnmail.el:1043, for fear of mail loss.
Is there anything wrong with my configuration or can I make this
portion of code more debugable?
Thanks,
--
Andreas Fuchs, <asf@acm.org>, asf@jabber.at, antifuchs
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=antifuchs
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Patch for ifile spam splitting in spam.el (was: Re: spam.el experiences)
2002-11-16 14:54 spam.el experiences Andreas Fuchs
@ 2002-11-19 9:09 ` Andreas Fuchs
2002-11-21 15:37 ` Patch for ifile spam splitting in spam.el Ted Zlatanov
2002-11-21 15:39 ` spam.el experiences Ted Zlatanov
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Fuchs @ 2002-11-19 9:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1032 bytes --]
Alright, I took the time to track the second one down. Please take a
look at the patches and try them if you use ifile.
On 2002-11-16, Andreas Fuchs <asf@void.at> wrote:
> * ifile. I have used ifile to classify my spam&ham; does marking an
> article with M-d also process it as a spam article in ifile?
I still don't know if it does and would very much like a spam.el guru
to testify (-:
> * nnmail-split-methods. Before I had spam.el, I used
[snip]
> IMHO, these should act identical, but they don't. In fact, I get
> errors every time I try to get new mails: "Error in
> `nnmail-split-methods'; using `bogus' mail group". I tracked the error
> down as far as I could, and found out that somewhere down there, an
> apply gets called with only one argument. I didn't dare remove the
> condition-case statement from nnmail.el:1043, for fear of mail loss.
>
> Is there anything wrong with my configuration or can I make this
> portion of code more debugable?
No configuration error, see this patch:
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1.2: Patch for execution errors in ifile spam checking --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 600 bytes --]
Index: lisp/spam.el
===================================================================
RCS file: /usr/local/cvsroot/gnus/lisp/spam.el,v
retrieving revision 6.22
diff -c -r6.22 spam.el
--- lisp/spam.el 2002/10/22 05:04:49 6.22
+++ lisp/spam.el 2002/11/19 09:05:48
@@ -195,8 +195,8 @@
decision)
(while (and list-of-checks (not decision))
(let ((pair (pop list-of-checks)))
- (when (eval (car pair))
- (setq decision (apply (cdr pair))))))
+ (when (symbol-value (car pair))
+ (setq decision (funcall (cdr pair))))))
(if (eq decision t)
nil
decision)))
[-- Attachment #1.3: Type: text/plain, Size: 229 bytes --]
apply would not work without an argument, and did therefore (correctly)
complain.
--
Andreas Fuchs, <asf@acm.org>, asf@jabber.at, antifuchs
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=antifuchs
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Patch for ifile spam splitting in spam.el
2002-11-19 9:09 ` Patch for ifile spam splitting in spam.el (was: Re: spam.el experiences) Andreas Fuchs
@ 2002-11-21 15:37 ` Ted Zlatanov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2002-11-21 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, asf@void.at wrote:
> Alright, I took the time to track the second one down. Please take a
> look at the patches and try them if you use ifile.
I applied the patch, thank you very much.
Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: spam.el experiences
2002-11-16 14:54 spam.el experiences Andreas Fuchs
2002-11-19 9:09 ` Patch for ifile spam splitting in spam.el (was: Re: spam.el experiences) Andreas Fuchs
@ 2002-11-21 15:39 ` Ted Zlatanov
2002-11-22 17:55 ` Jeremy H. Brown
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2002-11-21 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, asf@void.at wrote:
> I just tried using spam.el to make dealing with spam easier, but ran
> into these problems:
>
> * ifile. I have used ifile to classify my spam&ham; does marking an
> article with M-d also process it as a spam article in ifile?
Not currently. gnus-ifile.el only supports nnml newsgroups from what
I understand, so processing on summary exit with it in spam.el (which
is backend-independent) would not work well. spam.el does support
ifile for the splitting of incoming mail, so you can add the ifile
summary exit processing manually until we get a backend-independent
gnus-ifile.el.
The gnus-ifile.el maintainer told me the next release would be
backend-independent. I don't know when that will be.
Thanks for testing spam.el and for the patch.
Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: spam.el experiences
2002-11-21 15:39 ` spam.el experiences Ted Zlatanov
@ 2002-11-22 17:55 ` Jeremy H. Brown
2002-11-22 18:09 ` Ted Zlatanov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy H. Brown @ 2002-11-22 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: ding
Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
> Not currently. gnus-ifile.el only supports nnml newsgroups from what
> I understand, so processing on summary exit with it in spam.el (which
> is backend-independent) would not work well.
ifile-gnus.el has supported all of the nnmail backends for awhile, but
I haven't gotten to nnimap yet.
> The gnus-ifile.el maintainer told me the next release would be
> backend-independent. I don't know when that will be.
I don't either. Probably not until January at the earliest.
Jeremy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: spam.el experiences
2002-11-22 17:55 ` Jeremy H. Brown
@ 2002-11-22 18:09 ` Ted Zlatanov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2002-11-22 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: ding
On 22 Nov 2002, jhbrown@ai.mit.edu wrote:
> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> Not currently. gnus-ifile.el only supports nnml newsgroups from
>> what I understand, so processing on summary exit with it in spam.el
>> (which is backend-independent) would not work well.
>
> ifile-gnus.el has supported all of the nnmail backends for awhile,
> but I haven't gotten to nnimap yet.
I plan to add some group parameters to spam.el (see my previous post),
so it will be possible to trigger ifile only on nnmail backends with a
minimum of configuration. That should help.
Sorry for getting the name of ifile-gnus.el wrong :)
Thanks
Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-11-22 18:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-11-16 14:54 spam.el experiences Andreas Fuchs
2002-11-19 9:09 ` Patch for ifile spam splitting in spam.el (was: Re: spam.el experiences) Andreas Fuchs
2002-11-21 15:37 ` Patch for ifile spam splitting in spam.el Ted Zlatanov
2002-11-21 15:39 ` spam.el experiences Ted Zlatanov
2002-11-22 17:55 ` Jeremy H. Brown
2002-11-22 18:09 ` Ted Zlatanov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).