Re: nnmail-split-fancy?

Re: nnmail-split-fancy?

[Ted Zlatanov]

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gnu.emacs.gnus as well.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, savoie@nsidc.org wrote:
> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, savoie@no-spam.nsidc.org wrote:
>>> What I'm really looking for is the function that will let me say
>>> (: junk-this "regexp") in my nnmail-split-fancy, but maybe I
>>> should look into spam.el and see what it can do for me.
>>
>> Right now spam.el won't help, but I could add a spam-use-regex-body
>> function similar to spam-use-regex-headers.  The
>> spam-use-regex-body function could return an arbitrary group name,
>> unlike spam-use-regex-headers (only spam-use-ifile can return an
>> arbitrary group right now so this is somewhat unusual, but not a
>> problem).
> 
> That looks like pretty much exactly what I'm trying to do. I can
> then customize the spam-regex-body-spam variable to have all of the
> expressions I want to filter on?  I think I get it.
> 
> That would be cool if you would.

I added a binary check spam-use-regex-body (nil by default) that you
can customize through spam-regex-body-spam and spam-regex-body-ham
(empty lists by default).  If you set spam-user-regex-body to t and
use spam-split in your split-fancy rules, you should be all set.  It's
exactly like spam-use-regex-headers except that a) it searches the
whole body, b) prints slightly different messages, c) uses
spam-regex-body-spam and spam-regex-body-ham instead of
spam-regex-headers-spam and spam-regex-headers-ham.

If you need the ability to have multiple group names that will take a
bit longer.  Test this and let me know how it works, if there are
bugs...  It's in CVS.

Ted