Re: wallowing out of the spam quagmire

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

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, reader@newsguy.com wrote:

> I'm not sure we're from the same planetary system... or as bare
> minimum you must have a rather bizarre notion of what `not complex'
> means.  I went glassy eyed after the first couple hundred lines.
> 
> I'm introduced to black lists, black holes, hash-cash payments,
> bogofilters, on line data bases, bbdb as white list, some absolutely
> convoluted processing that seem to require `split fancy' which I've
> never used.  Some use of gnus registry, which I also have never messed
> with.  Many lines of variable discussion which apparently is supposed
> to spell out what 2780 lines of elisp in spame.el do.

Heh.  The *new* spam.el is better organized and should be easier to
understand.  Specifically, the backend-specific code that confused
you is separated from the program logic.

The gnus registry integration with spam.el is optional and off by default.

I agree though, the code is complex.  It has to be in order to do all
it does.

> I guess ...Spam ELisp Package Sequence of Events
> is as close as it gets..  Sounds like I need the auto-detect method
> and would set G p on my single inbox group to something that tells
> spam.el to `auto-detect' in it.

That would be OK.  The auto-detect stuff basically runs spam-split on
a temporary buffer with the message.

I'll follow up on your other messages too...

> My case should be the simplest possible example of using spam.el and
> bogofilter, but I'm not sure about involving gnus registry etc.
> Or what `exactly' needs doing.
> 
> I'm going to look for Teds patch to docs right now.

The doc patch is not by me, sorry for confusing you.

Ted