From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/56163 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: problem with bbdb whitelist filtering Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:13:28 -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: <4noesvua0n.fsf@collins.bwh.harvard.edu> References: <200401120935.i0C9ZbVV024046@loki.exolution.lan> <4nllocri65.fsf@collins.bwh.harvard.edu> <200401130845.i0D8jChq029589@loki.exolution.lan> <4nu12qi348.fsf@collins.bwh.harvard.edu> <200401220953.i0M9rFDm020430@loki.exolution.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1074795340 4063 80.91.224.253 (22 Jan 2004 18:15:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:15:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M4703@lists.math.uh.edu Thu Jan 22 19:15:29 2004 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 1AjjMX-0007hS-00 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:15:29 +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 1AjjM3-0002si-00; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:14:59 -0600 Original-Received: from justine.libertine.org ([66.139.78.221] ident=postfix) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1AjjLy-0002sd-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:14:54 -0600 Original-Received: from clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (clifford.bwh.harvard.edu [134.174.9.41]) by justine.libertine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BFC3A0026 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:14:53 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from collins.bwh.harvard.edu (collins [134.174.9.80]) by clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.0) with ESMTP id i0MIDZU04465; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:13:35 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from collins.bwh.harvard.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by collins.bwh.harvard.edu (8.12.9+Sun/8.11.0) with ESMTP id i0MIDTvl005894; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:13:29 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from tzz@localhost) by collins.bwh.harvard.edu (8.12.9+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id i0MIDTxp005891; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:13:29 -0500 (EST) Original-To: Martin Monsorno 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: Martin Monsorno , ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: <200401220953.i0M9rFDm020430@loki.exolution.lan> (Martin Monsorno's message of "Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:53:15 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (usg-unix-v) Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:56163 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:56163 On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, monsorno-nospam@gmx.de wrote: > I expected spam.el now to do the following: for every mail in the > list if the sender is in the BBDB, add a header 'X-Spammer: white: > From: Pit ' if not, do nothing I don't want > spam.el to do anything more with the mail. No more extraordinary > intelligent spam checks, no moving of mails. Just insert the > header, and let my mail splitting go further. - The following split > rules should then use the inserted header to move the messages to > several groups depending on several rules, and the messages without > this header to different groups. spam-split does not currently modify messages. I don't plan to add that capability myself since I don't need it, and it may break spam autodetection in read-only groups. You can write your own wrapper around spam-split which sets spam-split-symbolic-return to t. That will return 'spam if the message is believed to be spam; you can then do what you want with the message. In particular in your case, you can do (assuming your function has been called from the splitting rules): (let* ((spam-split-symbolic-return t) (ret (spam-split 'spam-use-BBDB-exclusive))) (when (eq ret 'spam) ;; insert header maybe )) > I suppose, step 2 is the critical one. I really do not know if > spam.el just inserts a header if it finds mail to be clean. But it > seems to work in most of the cases. It returns the spam-split-group if it believes the message to be spam, and nil otherwise. Only the ifile backend can return other things, because it classifies messages into categories. > So the questions are: > 1) Is it possible to do the mail-splitting described? I think I'll need to see your current rules to tell you, and the exact sequence you want to happen. Maybe it can be done. > I.e. does spam.el only inserts a header marking it as white, and let > my following split rules do the rest? No, and I'm not sure why you think it does. It doesn't say that in the manual, does it? Should it be mentioned specifically? > 2) How could it be then, that some messages are marked as white, if > their sender is not in the BBDB? > BTW: While re-reading the manual, I found an error in the info page > 'Spam ELisp Package Sequence of Events' on line 28, talking 2 times > about the same variable: > ,---- >| ... `G p' as usual), and the corresponding variables >| `gnus-spam-autodetect-methods' and `gnus-spam-autodetect-methods' >| ... > `---- Thanks for the report, fixed. Ted