Re: How many people mark spam in gmane groups?

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

I would suggest spam-report.el (considering that gnus-report.el is too
generic, this is really a spam reporting package).  Other spam
reporting functions can go in it as needed.

Also, we can add code to spam-report.el to make it usable by itself,
so users without spam.el can still use it.

How does the following (untested) code look?

(defun spam-report-gmane (article)
  (when (string-match "^nntp+.*:gmane." gnus-newsgroup-name)
    (with-current-buffer nntp-server-buffer
      (gnus-message 6 "Reporting spam article %d to spam.gmane.org..." article)
      (gnus-request-head article gnus-newsgroup-name)
      (goto-char (point-min))
      (when (re-search-forward "^X-Report-Spam: \\(http://.*\\)$" nil t)
	(let (file-name-handler-alist)
	  (url-retrieve (match-string 1) (lambda () nil)))))))

(defun spam-report-gmane-register-spam-routine ()
  (spam-generic-register-routine 
   spam-report-gmane
   nil))

I took out the article-no nicety because I changed things around, and
print the article number instead - feel free to fix it.  If you like
this, I'll have spam.el load spam-report.el and provide a spam exit
processor that will do the right thing - to be consistent with the
rest of spam.el.  I'm pretty sure we'll need to fix assumptions
spam.el makes about the backend (spam-process-destination needs to be
disabled, for instance), but overall I see no problem with this and I
think it's a good idea.

For those who aren't following the discussion, the upshot will be that
you add a gmane spam exit processor to your gmane groups, and the
processor will send the spam report automatically for the messages you
have marked as spam in the summary buffer.

Ted