From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/61029 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Ted Zlatanov" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: What's wrong with my spam.el settings now? Date: 27 Sep 2005 15:38:23 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <4n64smz4gg.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87mznufe09.fsf@lucien.dreaming> <4nmzm7k9jb.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87d5n3y89s.fsf@lucien.dreaming> <4nek7iiiho.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87ek7iwjqe.fsf@lucien.dreaming> <4noe6mgu71.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1127850154 16578 80.91.229.2 (27 Sep 2005 19:42:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:42:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+m9561@lists.math.uh.edu Tue Sep 27 21:42:26 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EKLJ3-0000TU-Hm for ding-account@gmane.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:40:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1EKLIy-0003Ax-00; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:39:56 -0500 Original-Received: from nas02.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.40]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1EKLHh-0003Ar-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:38:37 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by nas02.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EKLHe-0005uf-03 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:38:36 -0500 Original-Received: from clifford.bwh.harvard.edu ([134.174.9.41] helo=mail.bwh.harvard.edu) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1EKLHc-0003oG-00 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:38:33 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 12319 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2005 19:33:40 -0000 Envelope-Sender: tzz@lifelogs.com Envelope-Recipients: jas@extundo.com, ding@gnus.org, Original-Received: from asimov.bwh.harvard.edu (HELO asimov) (internal?.8?user:?tzz@[134.174.8.118]) (envelope-sender ) by mail.bwh.harvard.edu (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 27 Sep 2005 19:33:39 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: "Simon Josefsson" , ding@gnus.org Original-To: "Simon Josefsson" X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6;d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" X-Hashcash: 1:20:050927:ding@gnus.org::lFZeRYsqk1vD9zqd:00003ICP X-Hashcash: 1:20:050927:jas@extundo.com::C6JsKLdvpLWoRdSq:0087L+ In-Reply-To: (Simon Josefsson's message of "Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:40:09 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on sysblade0.bwh.harvard.edu X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.8 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Precedence: bulk Original-Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:61029 Archived-At: On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, jas@extundo.com wrote: > How is spam.el setting the spam mark? In particular, is it using the > gnus-request-set-mark interface? That interface must be called with > the flag update whenever any code that alter message flags without > going through the summary buffer variables (which are turned into > gnus-request-set-mark calls when exiting the group). I do it with gnus-summary-mark-article: 5 matches for "mark-article" in buffer: spam.el 1325: (gnus-summary-mark-article article gnus-spam-mark)) 1387: (gnus-summary-mark-article article gnus-expirable-mark))) 1427: (gnus-summary-mark-article article gnus-unread-mark)) 1432: (gnus-summary-mark-article article gnus-expirable-mark)) 1708: (gnus-summary-mark-article article gnus-spam-mark)) which worked fine so far. If that's wrong, what's the right way to do it (if you can point me to code that does the right thing, I'll make sure to implement mine the same way)? > If the spam mark should never be synced across Gnus installations, > then it should be added to gnus-article-unpropagated-mark-lists, then > the nnml code will not revert the spam flag. However, it seems like > the spam mark should be synchronized between Gnus installations, > should it not? Then the spam.el code has to call the g-r-s-m > interface when updating the marks. The spam mark is ephemeral, it only matters for the duration of a summary visit. When you exit, spam-marked articles get processed and expired. I did this intentionally when I started writing the spam.el logic. Ted