Re: spam-check-BBDB bug?/bbdb whitelist split function

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Wed, 05 Feb 2003, niklas.morberg@axis.com wrote:
> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
> 
>> 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? 
> 
> Given that I understand you correctly: yes! I get some false
> positives on mail from people who are in my BBDB when I use
> spam-stat.el. If what you are writing means: turn on BBDB
> whitelisting and all mail from everybody in your BBDB will
> be considered ham, then I am all for it.

Well, here's the embarassing thing: this was how things were supposed
to work when Francois Pinard wrote the code, but I didn't pay
attention and made whitelist/BBDB checks fall through to the next
spam-split rule (they returned nil instead of t).  So it's all my fault.

> False positives are really really bad because it means I have to
> sift through my spam group looking for valid emails.  But you knew
> this already.

I think the new code will fix that, try it (just committed to CVS).

I also added spam-use-{whitelist,BBDB}-exclusive for those who want to
consider all mail from people NOT in the BBDB/whitelist spam.

Ted