Re: spam.el: automatically resplitting ham in a spam group?

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, lorentey@elte.hu wrote:

> Lőrentey Károly <lorentey@elte.hu> writes:
>> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>>> I could make a ham-destination option to use 'respool instead of a
>>> group name, but just recently there was discussion of a nnimap bug
>>> with respooling.  What if the respooling returns nil, do we leave
>>> the ham message in the spam group?
>>
>> Hm.  What if spam-split would simply be disabled during the
>> ham-exit respool?
> 
> Sorry, my mind was wandering about respooling back to the spam
> group.  When does respooling return nil?  Does it mean that the
> respooling failed to categorize the message in any group?  I guess
> in my case, leaving ham in the spam group is OK if it can not be
> meaningfully resplit.

Respooling could return nil if the last element is spam-split or some
other function that can return nil.  I think returning nil as the last
split element is officially a Bad Thing, and spam-split does it
because anywhere but the last element it indicates a fall-through
(thus, ham gets through spam-split).

Anyhow, the big concern, which I just formulated this morning because
my brain works better then :) is that we resplit right back into the
spam group.  That's a very bad thing, because it will look to the
user like spam.el is not doing its job.

Ted