From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/48944 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Trouble with spam.el and ifile Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 10:11:34 -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: <4nfzs3llqx.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> References: <4nadic3fo1.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <4n1y3owr50.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 1042038706 19220 80.91.224.249 (8 Jan 2003 15:11:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 15:11:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org 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 18WHrr-0004zi-00 for ; Wed, 08 Jan 2003 16:11:43 +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 18WHs6-0006Eg-00; Wed, 08 Jan 2003 09:11:58 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Wed, 08 Jan 2003 09:12:53 -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 JAA14349 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:12:39 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 50983 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2003 15:11:40 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 50978 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2003 15:11:39 -0000 Original-Received: from clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (134.174.9.41) by 66.230.238.6 with SMTP; 8 Jan 2003 15:11:39 -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 h08FBZW11594; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:11:35 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from tzz@localhost) by lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.0) id h08FBZT24054; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:11:35 -0500 (EST) Original-To: David Z Maze 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: David Z Maze , ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (David Z Maze's message of "Tue, 07 Jan 2003 17:32:31 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090011 (Oort Gnus v0.11) Emacs/21.2 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:48944 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:48944 On Tue, 07 Jan 2003, dmaze@MIT.EDU wrote: > Everything seems to be matched against gnus-newsgroup-name, FWIW, > which does include the backend prefix; since regular expression > matching generally matches substrings, though, it's probably okay to > either have it or not. ...except for spam-split-group (which, when set to "mail" for instance, may mean "nnimap:mail" or "nnml:mail" because of the way splits work). Also spam-junk-mailgroups is a list of names, not regexes. I didn't convert it to regexes because there's already a mechanism, through the spam-contents parameter, to specify a group is spam through a regex. > spam-summary-prepare-exit, eh? That has > > ;; Only for spam groups, we expire and maybe move articles > (when (spam-group-spam-contents-p gnus-newsgroup-name) > (spam-mark-spam-as-expired-and-move-routine > (gnus-parameter-spam-process-destination gnus-newsgroup-name))) > > ...but that seems to be the opposite behavior from what I expect, I > want spam to be shuffled into a spam group only if the current group > isn't one. But if I understand the function: spam-marked articles > are noted by the spam backend, then spam-marked articles are > refiled, then in ham groups, the remaining articles are noted as ham > by the spam backend. The behavior made sense to me at the time, but I see what you mean and my original thought was wrong. Perhaps it should be either reversed to apply to groups that are not spam (ham + unclassified), or *all* groups should have their spam-marked articles processed by spam-mark-spam-as-expired-and-move-routine. Should I pick one or the other, or make it yet another user option? >>> If I mark an article not-spam in the spam group, does it get >>> refiled to the next best group on exit? >> >> No. You have to move it manually (but that functionality could be >> added). I assume you mean "mark unread," since there is no >> not-spam mark. > > Mark unread would work; "any ham mark" or "any not-spam mark" might > make sense too. It sounds like this is falling into "feature > request" land, though. Well, it can be added, and it makes sense as well - you don't want ham articles in a spam group. Maybe Yet Another User Option. > It looks like ifile reads its database, processes a single message, > and writes its database; lather, rinse, repeat. If you're dealing > with a networked filesystem, reading and writing the database once > per message is a big lose. The code is much simpler when you deal with one message at a time. That can be fixed, but take a look at the bogofilter register routine which does multiple messages to see why it may be a little complex. Hmm, maybe I can have the registration routine take a process as an optional parameter. > I've heard rumors that moving ~/.idata to local disk improvies this. Maybe Yet Another User Option to customize the .idata file name for spam.el use of ifile... That's an easy one to add, and I can imagine people might want to keep spam.el's ifile .idata and their regular .idata separate as well. > Doing filtering inside Emacs means that the database can live in > memory until I do a save in Gnus. You mean spam-stat.el? Yes, but ifile's lexer is supposed to be better. I don't have performance numbers in terms of speed or spam detection percentages, though. Ted