From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/50114 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: spam.el moves /all/ read articles to my spam group! Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:46:50 -0500 Organization: =?koi8-r?q?=F4=C5=CF=C4=CF=D2=20=FA=CC=C1=D4=C1=CE=CF=D7?= @ Cienfuegos Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <4n7kc2gbs5.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> References: <87wuk3wc7e.fsf@eris.void.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1045234344 27049 80.91.224.249 (14 Feb 2003 14:52:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:52:24 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18jh6G-0006fH-00 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:46:00 +0100 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 18jh7N-0005BM-00; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:47:09 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:48:06 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (sclp3.sclp.com [66.230.238.2]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA09956 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:47:54 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 38209 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2003 14:46:52 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 38204 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2003 14:46:52 -0000 Original-Received: from clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (134.174.9.41) by 66.230.238.6 with SMTP; 14 Feb 2003 14:46:52 -0000 Original-Received: from lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu (lockgroove [134.174.9.133]) by clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1EEkpj14099 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:46:51 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from tzz@localhost) by lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.0) id h1EEkoF06109; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:46:50 -0500 (EST) Original-To: ding@gnus.org 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" Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: <87wuk3wc7e.fsf@eris.void.at> (Andreas Fuchs's message of "Fri, 14 Feb 2003 07:29:13 +0000 (UTC)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090016 (Oort Gnus v0.16) Emacs/21.2 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:50114 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:50114 On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, asf@void.at wrote: > Ugh. Seems like I have managed to fsck up my spam.el setup again. > > Repeatable behaviour: > > * Enter group Read one article. Article has "R" mark. No spam marked > * articles in group. Exit group Messages buffer says: ,---- > | Exiting summary buffer and applying spam rules > | Registering spam with bogofilter > | Moving to nnml+private:spambox: (3325)... > | Wrote /home/asf/Mail/spambox/18739 > `---- > * Enter spam group. Previously read article is there. Yikes! > > Badness. What would be the cause of that? I added code to move spam-marked articles, but "R" articles should not be affected. Can you replace spam-mark-spam-as-expired-and-move-routine with this: (defun spam-mark-spam-as-expired-and-move-routine (&optional group) (let ((articles gnus-newsgroup-articles) article tomove) (dolist (article articles) (gnus-summary-remove-process-mark article) (when (eq (gnus-summary-article-mark article) gnus-spam-mark) (debug article (gnus-summary-article-mark article)) (gnus-summary-mark-article article gnus-expirable-mark) (push article tomove))) ;; now do the actual move (when (stringp group) (dolist (article tomove) (gnus-summary-set-process-mark article)) (when tomove (debug group) (gnus-summary-move-article nil group))))) Just hit "c" when you get the debugger pop-up windows, and try to keep track of those article numbers vs. the ones that were marked "R" in the summary. I need to find out if a) articles marked as read are seen as spam somehow, and b) the articles are being moved by spam-mark-spam-as-expired-and-move-routine. I haven't observed this behavior here. Thanks Ted