From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/49840 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: spam-check-BBDB bug?/bbdb whitelist split function Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:57:33 -0500 Organization: =?koi8-r?q?=F4=C5=CF=C4=CF=D2=20=FA=CC=C1=D4=C1=CE=CF=D7?= @ Cienfuegos Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <4nof5qfw4y.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> References: <4nwukeiy3c.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1044468246 802 80.91.224.249 (5 Feb 2003 18:04:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 18:04:06 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18gTmk-0007oB-00 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2003 18:56:35 +0100 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 18gToB-0002sd-00; Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:58:03 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:59:00 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (sclp3.sclp.com [66.230.238.2]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA17264 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:58:48 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 78243 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2003 17:57:46 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 78238 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2003 17:57:46 -0000 Original-Received: from clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (134.174.9.41) by 66.230.238.6 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2003 17:57:46 -0000 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 h15Hvkj29678 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:57:46 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from tzz@localhost) by lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.0) id h15HvXW02593; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:57:33 -0500 (EST) Original-To: ding@gnus.org 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: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (Bill White's message of "Wed, 05 Feb 2003 08:59:46 -0600") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090015 (Oort Gnus v0.15) Emacs/21.2 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49840 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49840 On Wed, 05 Feb 2003, billw@wolfram.com wrote: > On Wed Feb 05 2003 at 08:47, Ted Zlatanov said: > >>> I've also adjusted this to return a positive match for bbdb >>> persons; folks who maintain bbdb as a whitelist might find it >>> useful (adjust for local conditions, YMMV, etc.): >> >> Currently, spam-split will fall through to the next spam/ham check >> on a whitelist match. >> >> I thought of having whitelists return t for a positive ham match, >> and then spam-split wouldn't examine the rest of the spam/ham >> checks but simply return nil altogether. Does that makes sense? > > Kinda, but I don't have a clear picture of the whole thing (hence my > little function to do the one thing I wanted at that precise place). I had screwed up my code in spam.el - now, spam-use-BBDB and spam-use-whitelist will not go to the next rule, if the sender is in the BBDB/whitelist but simply exit spam-split altogether; also they will only consider messages from people NOT in the BBDB/whitelist spam if spam-use-{whitelist,BBDB}-exclusive is set. Basically, I ended up doing what you (and I assume everyone else) wants out of BBDB/whitelisting, instead of the broken behavior I had in place before. >> Or should spam-split have a ham-split-group analogous to >> spam-split-group? > > Aha - that's exactly what I was grepping for last night. I'd rather have spam-split fall through to the next rule in the split-fancy sequence, I think. It was just not doing the right thing before, that's all... The bug was in the code, not the design. But if people want ham-split-group, I can add it to the ham checks as an option, instead of fall-through. This variable name is getting dangerously close to "split-pea and ham soup." Thanks Ted