From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/50052 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: spam-stat broken? Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:44:24 -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: <4nd6lxk407.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> References: <4nwukeiy3c.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <4nr8amfwem.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <4nfzqur9al.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <4nk7g6tvdf.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <4n4r79px4y.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1045057435 23099 80.91.224.249 (12 Feb 2003 13:43:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:43:55 +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 18ixB2-000601-00 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:43:52 +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 18ixCY-0002aB-00; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 07:45:26 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Wed, 12 Feb 2003 07:46:24 -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 HAA04838 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 07:46:12 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 14437 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2003 13:45:09 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 14432 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2003 13:45:09 -0000 Original-Received: from clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (134.174.9.41) by 66.230.238.6 with SMTP; 12 Feb 2003 13:45:09 -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 h1CDigj24470 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:44:42 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from tzz@localhost) by lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.0) id h1CDiOO26746; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:44:24 -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: <4n4r79px4y.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Wed, 12 Feb 2003 06:16:13 -0500") 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:50052 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:50052 On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, tzz@lifelogs.com wrote: > As I said, I'm not sure it's the right way. Another issue is, what > if you have articles process-marked before you exit a group? Will > the process-mark get removed before the spam.el routines get > invoked? I didn't test this yesterday because I was in a hurry. Both issues fixed: - previously process-marked articles are unmarked now before spam/ham articles of interest are process-marked - gnus-summary-move-article is called just once Thanks Ted