Re: spam.el and Procmail splitting strategy?

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, jklymak@coas.oregonstate.edu wrote:
> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
> 
>> Well, I was thinking of a 'respool spam/ham process destination, as
>> suggested before, which would resubmit the spam/ham mail to the
>> spool process from any mailbox.  Would that work for you?
> 
> Not sure if that would work.  Does imap support re-spooling?  

Yes, AFAIK.

> I am pretty happy taking bbdb out of my .procmail and splitting it
> in gnus instead.  It does, however, seem that this will end up being
> a generic problem if other mail groups get infected.  Doing all my
> splitting in gnus may be a good option - it just means that I need
> to have a gnus running at all times on my main machine.

Yes, that's annoying.  I tend to use IMAP for the mail I want shared
between machines, that works nicely.  Two machines running IMAP won't
conflict, you only have to make sure they are splitting the same way
(so if you use BBDB for splitting, for instance, you need to make sure
your BBDB database is synchronized between machines).

> It seems that it should be possible to spam-split new messages in
> any group upon entry.  I guess it just doesn't fit with the existing
> splitting mechanism.  Perhaps the splitting mechanism not be
> extended so that the last argument in nnimap-split-fancy is
> something like "current-split-inbox" instead of a single mail box?
[...]
> Of course, I have no idea how the splitting code is written so that
> may not be easy.

I'm afraid I'm pretty ignorant of the splitting internals.  Perhaps
someone better acquainted with them can answer.

Ted