Re: spam.el/spam-report.el: Gmane spam reporting broken in No Gnus

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

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc wrote:

On Tue, Sep 20 2005, Ted Zlatanov wrote: > On Thu, 08 Sep 2005, reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc wrote:
> [...]
>> Can you try to use (spam spam-use-gmane) instead of
>> gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-report-gmane?
> 
> Then it works:

Great.  I'm debating whether I should complete remove the old-style
gnus-group-*-exit-processor-* variables.  I say yes.  If I do that, I
won't have to fix this bug :)

> I'm a little confused about the obsolescence: In [v5-10]/lisp/spam.el
> `spam-list-of-processors' does not seem to be obsolete (CMIIW,
> please).  

Well, the variable's docstring has as the first line:

  "The OBSOLETE `spam-list-of-processors' list.

Should I mark it obsolete in some other way?  I recall Emacs Lisp has
some properties for that...

> While at it: In the v5-10 branch, there's the following comment:
> 
> ,----[ [v5-10]/lisp/spam.el ]
> |     ;; note that spam-use-gmane is not a legitimate check
> |     (spam-use-gmane      nil
> | 			 spam-report-gmane-register-routine
> | 			 ;; does Gmane support unregistration?
> | 			 nil
> | 			 nil)
> `----
> 
> Gmane supports unregistration: You can reverse the report
>   http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.foo.bar:1234 with
> http://unspam.gmane.org/gmane.foo.bar:1234

Thanks, I didn't know that.  I just added the support to spam.el and
spam-report.el.  I assume that registering as spam is the same as
unregistering as ham, and vice versa; if that's not the case let me
know and I'll correct the backend registration.  Please test the
reporting, if you have a chance.

Thanks
Ted