From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/54635 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: spam/ham exit processors Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:41:26 -0500 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: <4nllqx47mx.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> References: <76ekwpy35x.fsf@newjersey.ppllc.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1067885014 17290 80.91.224.253 (3 Nov 2003 18:43:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:43:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M3176@lists.math.uh.edu Mon Nov 03 19:43:32 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AGjfn-0000Dl-00 for ; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 19:43:32 +0100 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 1AGjem-0003ep-00; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:42:28 -0600 Original-Received: from justine.libertine.org ([66.139.78.221]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1AGjef-0003eS-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:42:21 -0600 Original-Received: from clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (clifford.bwh.harvard.edu [134.174.9.41]) by justine.libertine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D143A0079 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:42:20 -0600 (CST) 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 hA3Ifn712177; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:41:49 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from tzz@localhost) by lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.0) id hA3IfQt02140; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:41:26 -0500 (EST) Original-To: Jake Colman 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: Jake Colman , ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: <76ekwpy35x.fsf@newjersey.ppllc.com> (Jake Colman's message of "Mon, 03 Nov 2003 08:47:38 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (usg-unix-v) Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:54635 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:54635 On Mon, 03 Nov 2003, colman@ppllc.com wrote: >>>From my reading of the manual, it seems that the suggested or >>anticipated > modus operandi is to move spam in a ham-classified group to a > spam-classified group for furthur processing and to move ham from a > spam-classified group over to a ham-classified group for furthur > processing. Nope, you can process the spam at the point of origin or in a central group. Most people like a central "spam" group better. > In such aa situation, do you need both types of exit processors in > both types of groups? Or do you just need a ham exit processors for > the ham-classified group and a spam exit processor for the > spam-classified group? You can do it either way, and it is just a different approach to the same problem. > I'm assuming that having an exit processor when you don't need one > costs you a bit in performance. The only performance cost is for the analysis of spam or ham, if there's nothing to be done you won't pay any penalties in performance at all. So you can choose to batch up the processing in one group or break it up over several groups. It depends on your system, the particular spam/ham processor's speed, the size of the messages... Ted