Re: Improving the spam.el documentation.

["Ted Zlatanov" <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004, daniel@rimspace.net wrote:

> It occurred to me today that it might be a bit easier for people to deal
> with the spam and ham processors in the from of two group parameters,
> `spam-process' and `ham-process', rather than `spam-process' having a
> `spam' or `ham' designator before each processor...
> 
> I don't know, though, if it is worth the trouble of changing over.

Definitely not, it's fine the way it is.  The "spam-" prefix refers
to the spam.el package.  It would be a major inconvenience, since I
just introduced the "new" format and I assume at least a few users
are using it.  The "new" format:

(spam spam-use-BACKEND)
(ham spam-use-BACKEND)

makes sense when combined with the spam-use-BACKEND variables already
in spam.el.  Also, it's extensible, and I plan to have

(both spam-use-BACKEND)

as an alternative, meaning "use both the ham and the spam processors"
as a shortcut for specifying both versions of the processor.  This
will probably come in the spam.el redesign.

Ted