* [Q]: Question on a spam variable
@ 2005-02-12 22:25 Xavier Maillard
2005-02-14 16:44 ` Ted Zlatanov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Xavier Maillard @ 2005-02-12 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hello again,
The docstring for `gnus-spam-newsgroup-contents' is weird
,----[ C-h v gnus-spam-newsgroup-contents RET ]
| gnus-spam-newsgroup-contents's value is
| (("INBOX.mail.spam" gnus-group-spam-classification-spam))
|
|
| *Groups in which to automatically mark new articles as spam on
| summary entry. If non-nil, this should be a list of group name
| regexps that should match all groups in which to do automatic spam
| tagging, associated with a classification (spam, ham, or neither).
| This only makes sense for mail groups.
|
| You can customize this variable.
|
| Defined in `gnus'.
`----
It states that all groups listed are considered as spam groups
but we have to associate each group with a classification that
can be different from spam.
What is the purpose of the classification stuff here ?
Regards
--
Xavier Maillard
http://www.gnu-rox.org/~zedek/cgi-bin/wiki.pl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [Q]: Question on a spam variable
2005-02-12 22:25 [Q]: Question on a spam variable Xavier Maillard
@ 2005-02-14 16:44 ` Ted Zlatanov
2005-02-16 16:31 ` Reiner Steib
2005-02-19 14:53 ` Xavier Maillard
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2005-02-14 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, zedek@gnu-rox.org wrote:
> The docstring for `gnus-spam-newsgroup-contents' is weird
>
> It states that all groups listed are considered as spam groups
> but we have to associate each group with a classification that
> can be different from spam.
Thanks for noticing that. It's not only meaningful for mail groups
anymore, so that's another doc bug :)
I have rewritten the docsctring to:
"*Group classification (spam, ham, or neither). Only meaningful
when spam.el is loaded. If non-nil, this should be a list of group
name regexps, associated with a classification. In spam groups, new
articles are marked as spam on summary entry. There is other behavior
associated with ham and no classification when spam.el is loaded - see
the manual."
Let me know if it's still unclear.
Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [Q]: Question on a spam variable
2005-02-14 16:44 ` Ted Zlatanov
@ 2005-02-16 16:31 ` Reiner Steib
2005-02-16 19:20 ` Ted Zlatanov
2005-02-19 14:53 ` Xavier Maillard
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Reiner Steib @ 2005-02-16 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Mon, Feb 14 2005, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> Thanks for noticing that. It's not only meaningful for mail groups
> anymore, so that's another doc bug :)
>
> I have rewritten the docsctring to:
>
> "*Group classification (spam, ham, or neither). Only meaningful
[...]
Could you apply this and your other bug fixes and doc fixes to the
v5-10 branch (if necessary there)?
Bye, Reiner.
--
,,,
(o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- | PGP key available | http://rsteib.home.pages.de/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [Q]: Question on a spam variable
2005-02-16 16:31 ` Reiner Steib
@ 2005-02-16 19:20 ` Ted Zlatanov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2005-02-16 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14 2005, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
>
>> Thanks for noticing that. It's not only meaningful for mail groups
>> anymore, so that's another doc bug :)
>>
>> I have rewritten the docsctring to:
>>
>> "*Group classification (spam, ham, or neither). Only meaningful
> [...]
>
> Could you apply this and your other bug fixes and doc fixes to the
> v5-10 branch (if necessary there)?
I think I got the two fixes (one doc, one registry bug) that needed to
be comitted. Thanks for reminding me.
Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [Q]: Question on a spam variable
2005-02-14 16:44 ` Ted Zlatanov
2005-02-16 16:31 ` Reiner Steib
@ 2005-02-19 14:53 ` Xavier Maillard
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Xavier Maillard @ 2005-02-19 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
On 14 fév 2005, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> I have rewritten the docsctring to:
>
> "*Group classification (spam, ham, or neither). Only meaningful
> when spam.el is loaded. If non-nil, this should be a list of
> group name regexps, associated with a classification. In spam
> groups, new articles are marked as spam on summary entry. There
> is other behavior associated with ham and no classification
> when spam.el is loaded - see the manual."
>
> Let me know if it's still unclear.
Much more better ;) Thank you for your time.
--
Hacker Wonderland Xavier Maillard| "Stand Back! I'm a programmer!"
.0. zedek@gnu-rox.orgz|
..0 (+33) 326 770 221 | Webmaster, emacsfr.org
000 PGP : 0x1E028EA5 | Membre de l' APRIL
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-02-19 14:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-02-12 22:25 [Q]: Question on a spam variable Xavier Maillard
2005-02-14 16:44 ` Ted Zlatanov
2005-02-16 16:31 ` Reiner Steib
2005-02-16 19:20 ` Ted Zlatanov
2005-02-19 14:53 ` Xavier Maillard
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).