From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/53456 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Need help with spam stuff. Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:43:24 -0400 Organization: =?koi8-r?q?=F4=C5=CF=C4=CF=D2=20=FA=CC=C1=D4=C1=CE=CF=D7?= @ Cienfuegos Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Message-ID: <4nhe5n4lur.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1058298210 22046 80.91.224.249 (15 Jul 2003 19:43:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:43:30 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ding-owner+M2001@lists.math.uh.edu Tue Jul 15 21:43:26 2003 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 19cVht-0005j1-00 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:43:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 19cViW-0003uL-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:44:04 -0500 Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com ([64.157.176.121]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 19cViO-0003uF-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:43:56 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 8194 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2003 19:43:56 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 8189 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2003 19:43:56 -0000 Original-Received: from clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (134.174.9.41) by sclp3.sclp.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 2003 19:43:56 -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 h6FJhOn07743 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:43:24 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (from tzz@localhost) by lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.0) id h6FJhOv29345; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:43:24 -0400 (EDT) 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: (Xavier Maillard's message of "Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:06:12 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (usg-unix-v) Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:53456 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:53456 On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, zedek@gnu-rox.org wrote: > I am trying to write a small document onto the french Gnus user site > [1] about configuring Gnus to fight spam using Ted's work. > > As I am not a real expert at this, I would expect your help ;) Feel free to ask questions, I'll answer as best I can. > What are according to your current settings the proper way to > configure Gnus for that ? What's the best approach to get, to have > it working perfectly ? What spam filter to use and how ? spam.el tries to avoid these decisions. I have seen users who want everything automatic, other users want only incoming mail splitting, others want only marked spam/ham transfer at summary exit time. Each user seems to like something different for a spam filter, too (since you can combine filters, the total number of possibilities is very large). In terms of "most popular" spam filter, SpamAssassin and Bogofilter seem to be very popular. Both are supported by spam.el, one by spam-use-regex-headers (which is configured for SpamAssassin by default) the other by spam-use-bogofilter. I don't hear much about ifile at all, but it was a very neat idea when I first heard of it. SpamOracle is new and I don't know how many users need it. Plenty of people, especially on Win32, use spam-stat.el since it is platform-independent. > I have my own ideas on the subject as I have configured mine, but I > need more feedbacks from other people to be as accurate as > possible. What did people use : hand writing or customize stuff ? > Why one way and not the other ? The manual section about spam.el gives very few ELisp examples for these two reasons: one, it's hard to give an example when people almost certainly will want something different from everyone else for filtering spam; two, Customize is much better as a common customization interface. Group and topic parameters are the other configuration piece, and that's pretty simple as well if done through the proper interface in Gnus (`G c'). I recommend Customize all the way, it's much harder to get it wrong. I had at least one person say they prefer hand-written customization, and that's fine with me as long as I don't get bug reports because users misconfigured things. My personal spam-related settings as of now: (setq spam-use-bbdb t spam-use-regex-headers t ; does X-Spam-Flag by default spam-use-blackholes (stringp (executable-find "dig")) spam-blackhole-good-server-regex "134.174" ;; my local subnet gnus-spam-newsgroup-contents '(("spam" gnus-group-spam-classification-spam)) spam-mark-only-unseen-as-spam t ;; split incoming mail according to the following rules. nnmail-split-methods 'nnmail-split-fancy nnmail-split-fancy '(| (: gnus-registry-split-fancy-with-parent) ;; check SpamAssassin early (: spam-split 'spam-use-regex-headers) ;; many irrelevant intermediate rules omitted (: spam-split) ;; default mailbox "mail")) Ted