From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/54491 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Gnus and Outlook and spam? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:57:09 -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: <4nu15tpd7u.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> References: <863cdldm6j.fsf@slowfox.dyndns.org> <4nn0bskkge.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <76brs7q5yz.fsf@newjersey.ppllc.com> <4nismfkg7b.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <76y8vbonov.fsf@newjersey.ppllc.com> <4nr813n46u.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <76llraep1k.fsf@newjersey.ppllc.com> <4n1xsycs7j.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <76llr5gzaq.fsf@newjersey.ppllc.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1067356706 14118 80.91.224.253 (28 Oct 2003 15:58:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:58:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M3032@lists.math.uh.edu Tue Oct 28 16:58:23 2003 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 1AEWEg-0003ku-00 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:58:23 +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 1AEWER-0007nV-00; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:58:07 -0600 Original-Received: from justine.libertine.org ([66.139.78.221]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1AEWEK-0007nP-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:58:00 -0600 Original-Received: from clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (clifford.bwh.harvard.edu [134.174.9.41]) by justine.libertine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7103A0060 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:57:59 -0600 (CST) 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 h9SFvU701742; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:57:30 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from tzz@localhost) by lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.0) id h9SFv9Y19608; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:57:09 -0500 (EST) Original-To: Jake Colman 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: Jake Colman , ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: <76llr5gzaq.fsf@newjersey.ppllc.com> (Jake Colman's message of "Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:25:01 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (usg-unix-v) Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:54491 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:54491 On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, colman@ppllc.com wrote: >>>>>> "TZ" == Ted Zlatanov writes: > > TZ> Please point that out. You may be referring to the note for > TZ> IMAP users, which relates to statistical filters, but that's > TZ> not a problem with IMAP per se, it's just a setting > TZ> (nnimap-split-download-body) that you need to turn on. > > This variable, nnimap-split-download-body, is NOT required if I work > with bogofilter? Supposedly, this variable is expensive to use > since it slows things down considerably. Bogofilter needs to analyze the message body, so yes, you need to download the body. In fact, unless you specifically turn it off, any statistical filter, e.g. spam-use-bogofilter, will turn body downloading on. You could, however, turn body downloading off if you just want to analyze the message headers. It's a user decision, in the end. > TZ> ;; this is a very rough approximation, read the fancy > TZ> ;; splitting docs if you want to know more > TZ> (setq nnimap-split-fancy > TZ> '(| > TZ> (any "help-gnu-emacs" "INBOX/Emacs/Help") > TZ> (any "info-gnus-english" "INBOX/Emacs/Gnus") > TZ> ... > TZ> ... > TZ> ... > TZ> ... > TZ> (: spam-split) > TZ> ("INBOX/Misc"))) > > TZ> (setq spam-use-bogofilter t) > TZ> (spam-initialize) > > Thanks for this conversion. If I understand this correctly, it will > first filter that which it knows, then it will spam-split and file > accordingly. This means that I will only be spam filtering on those > emails that I have not explicitly filtered and filed, correct? Yes. > So it cannot check for spam in mailing lists that have been spammed, > right? You can. Let's say you have tests which are mild, mid-range, and severe (examples of each are spam-use-blacklist, spam-use-bogofilter, and spam-use-BBDB-exclusive respectively). You can do: (: spam-split 'spam-use-blacklist) ; mild test, will catch known spammers (MAILING LIST CHECKS) ; put mailing lists with little spam here (: spam-split 'spam-use-bogofilter) ; mid-range test, will catch suspected spam (OTHER CHECKS) ; you can put mailing lists that get spam here (: spam-split 'spam-use-BBDB-exclusive) ; severe test, everyone not in the BBDB is a spammer "mail" The exact structure is up to you. Most people don't need more than 3 checks. I personally do BBDB, blackholes, and regex (which catches server-side SpamAssassin tagging). My nnimap-split-fancy: '(| (: gnus-registry-split-fancy-with-parent) (: spam-split 'spam-use-regex-headers) ;; lists are filtered here, all but one omitted for brevity (any "ding" "ding") ;; this will redo the regex-headers check, but that's a cheap test ;; so I don't mind (: spam-split) "mail") Ted