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

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Tue, 04 Feb 2003, billw@wolfram.com wrote:
> I was futzing around defining my own "if he's in bbdb then he's not
> spam" split function when I discovered spam-check-BBDB in spam.el:
> 
> It seems in my tests that bbdb-search-simple does not search for a
> regexp but for a simple string representation of an address, so I
> suspect the regexp-quote bit should be removed.

Thanks, that was left over from the old bbdb-search function call.

> I've also adjusted this to return a positive match for bbdb persons;
> folks who maintain bbdb as a whitelist might find it useful (adjust
> for local conditions, YMMV, etc.):

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?  Or should
spam-split have a ham-split-group analogous to spam-split-group?  

I always assumed people would rather have spam-split fall through on
ham than have it be an absolute arbiter, but maybe users would like it
the other way.  Or both ways.  This is Gnus, after all.  I'm sure
there's a user out there that wants spam-split to retrieve his daily
comics :)

Ted