Re: spam/ham exit processors

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003, rra@stanford.edu wrote:

> What happened when I set a process destination is that all the spam
> would get moved into that group and show up as new unread messages
> there.  So when I went to do my false positive scan, I would end up
> scanning through all those messages again, even though I'd already
> manually confirmed that they were spam.
> 
> And depending on how I set things up, I'd either end up registering
> that spam twice (once when I moved it into that group and again when
> I scanned the group for false positives), or I'd end up not
> registering any spam that bogofilter stuck directly into the spam
> group.

I think you want an intermediate "spam" group with its
process-destination set to "train", and then run spam-processors on
"train" only.  So all spam will flow to "spam" and then you can pop
ham back out of "spam" before it all gets moved into "train."

I like the "train" approach also because Bogofilter can be easily run
on all those messages from the command line.

Ted