recheck arguments for commands to display spamicity scores

recheck arguments for commands to display spamicity scores

[TSUCHIYA Masatoshi]

Hi,

I have added an optional argument `recheck', to `spam-generic-score',
`spam-bogofilter-score' and `spam-spamassassin-score'.

This argument means that they recalcurate spamicity scores using the
current spam databases even if target articles have spamicity score
headers.  I think that this argument is useful to check whether spam
databases are updated properly.

And more, I'd like to propose the patch attached at the last of this
message, to change their default actions, because old spamicity scores
kept by headers must be less important than ones calculated using the
current updated database, when using spam detector based on headers,
including `spam-use-bogofilter-headers'.

Can I commit this change?

-- 
TSUCHIYA Masatoshi
\f
--- spam.el	30 Apr 2004 14:33:58 -0000	7.33
+++ spam.el	30 Apr 2004 15:17:48 -0000
@@ -799,15 +799,15 @@
 	(return)))
     (or score 0)))
 
-(defun spam-generic-score (&optional recheck)
+(defun spam-generic-score (&optional use-header)
   "Invoke whatever scoring method we can."
   (interactive "P")
   (cond
    ((or spam-use-spamassassin spam-use-spamassassin-headers)
-    (spam-spamassassin-score recheck))
+    (spam-spamassassin-score use-header))
    ((or spam-use-bsfilter spam-use-bsfilter-headers)
-    (spam-bsfilter-score recheck))
-   (t (spam-bogofilter-score recheck))))
+    (spam-bsfilter-score use-header))
+   (t (spam-bogofilter-score use-header))))
 
 ;;; Summary entry and exit processing.
 
@@ -2065,13 +2065,13 @@
 	  spam-split-group)))))
 
 ;; return something sensible if the score can't be determined
-(defun spam-bogofilter-score (&optional recheck)
+(defun spam-bogofilter-score (&optional use-header)
   "Get the Bogofilter spamicity score"
   (interactive "P")
   (save-window-excursion
     (gnus-summary-show-article t)
     (set-buffer gnus-article-buffer)
-    (let ((score (or (unless recheck
+    (let ((score (or (when use-header
 		       (spam-check-bogofilter-headers t))
 		     (spam-check-bogofilter t))))
       (gnus-summary-show-article)
@@ -2231,13 +2231,13 @@
 	(spam-check-spamassassin-headers score)))))
 
 ;; return something sensible if the score can't be determined
-(defun spam-spamassassin-score (&optional recheck)
+(defun spam-spamassassin-score (&optional use-header)
   "Get the SpamAssassin score"
   (interactive "P")
   (save-window-excursion
     (gnus-summary-show-article t)
     (set-buffer gnus-article-buffer)
-    (let ((score (or (unless recheck
+    (let ((score (or (when use-header
 		       (spam-check-spamassassin-headers t))
 		     (spam-check-spamassassin t))))
       (gnus-summary-show-article)
@@ -2302,13 +2302,13 @@
 	  spam-split-group)))))
 
 ;; return something sensible if the score can't be determined
-(defun spam-bsfilter-score (&optional recheck)
+(defun spam-bsfilter-score (&optional use-header)
   "Get the Bsfilter spamicity score"
   (interactive "P")
   (save-window-excursion
     (gnus-summary-show-article t)
     (set-buffer gnus-article-buffer)
-    (let ((score (or (unless recheck
+    (let ((score (or (when use-header
 		       (spam-check-bsfilter-headers t))
 		     (spam-check-bsfilter t))))
       (gnus-summary-show-article)

Re: recheck arguments for commands to display spamicity scores

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Sat, 01 May 2004, tsuchiya@namazu.org wrote:

> I have added an optional argument `recheck', to
> `spam-generic-score', `spam-bogofilter-score' and
> `spam-spamassassin-score'.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're doing, the diff says
you're removing the "recheck" argument.

> And more, I'd like to propose the patch attached at the last of this
> message, to change their default actions, because old spamicity
> scores kept by headers must be less important than ones calculated
> using the current updated database, when using spam detector based
> on headers, including `spam-use-bogofilter-headers'.
> 
> Can I commit this change?

I think the goal is good, can you check that your patch is correct
though?  I may be confused too easily :)

Ted