Re: spam/ham exit processors

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003, colman@ppllc.com wrote:

>>>>>> "TZ" == Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
> 
>    TZ> I think you want an intermediate "spam" group with its
>    TZ> process-destination set to "train", and then run
>    TZ> spam-processors on "train" only.  So all spam will flow to
>    TZ> "spam" and then you can pop ham back out of "spam" before it
>    TZ> all gets moved into "train."
> 
>    TZ> I like the "train" approach also because Bogofilter can be
>    TZ> easily run on all those messages from the command line.
> 
> But if the messages were already filtered into the "intermediate"
> spam group it would seem to indicate that spam.el (through whatever
> statistical tool is being used) already determine it to be spam.  So
> why do you need to ever move messages from one spam group into
> another?

Because I like to verify (visually) that messages are spam before
training my filters on them.  This has given me the result of 2 spam
messages in the last week that got through, out of a few thousand
spams.  Some people don't want the inconvenience of spending time
looking at spams, so they train on whatever is in the spam folder.
That's fine too.

Ted