From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/54670 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jake Colman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: spam/ham exit processors Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 12:37:16 -0500 Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Message-ID: <761xsorq5v.fsf@newjersey.ppllc.com> References: <76ekwpy35x.fsf@newjersey.ppllc.com> <4nllqx47mx.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <87ptg9ryb2.fsf@emptyhost.emptydomain.de> <87vfq15h3o.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4nllqx16ul.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <877k2h5ds4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4nptg8sw8u.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <7665i0rwwm.fsf@newjersey.ppllc.com> <4nvfq0ds72.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1067967500 12948 80.91.224.253 (4 Nov 2003 17:38:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:38:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M3211@lists.math.uh.edu Tue Nov 04 18:38:15 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 1AH58B-0003Hs-00 for ; Tue, 04 Nov 2003 18:38:15 +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 1AH57U-0001kT-00; Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:37:32 -0600 Original-Received: from justine.libertine.org ([66.139.78.221]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1AH57N-0001kN-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:37:25 -0600 Original-Received: from newjersey.ppllc.com (unknown [65.206.49.195]) by justine.libertine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7174A3A004F for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:37:23 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (from colman@localhost) by newjersey.ppllc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03905; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 12:37:16 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: newjersey.ppllc.com: colman set sender to colman@ppllc.com using -f Original-To: Russ Allbery X-Attribution: Jake X-URL: http://www.ppllc.com In-Reply-To: <4nvfq0ds72.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:17:05 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, usg-unix-v) Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:54670 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:54670 >>>>> "TZ" == Ted Zlatanov writes: TZ> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003, colman@ppllc.com wrote: >>>>>>> "TZ" == Ted Zlatanov 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? TZ> Because I like to verify (visually) that messages are spam before TZ> training my filters on them. This has given me the result of 2 spam TZ> messages in the last week that got through, out of a few thousand TZ> spams. Some people don't want the inconvenience of spending time TZ> looking at spams, so they train on whatever is in the spam folder. TZ> That's fine too. I MUST be missing something here. Don't the filters _already know_ that the messages were spam? How else did they end up in the intermediate folder? Why do you need to train if it's been trained? -- Jake Colman Principia Partners LLC Phone: (201) 209-2467 Harborside Financial Center Fax: (201) 946-0320 902 Plaza Two E-mail: colman@ppllc.com Jersey City, NJ 07311 www.principiapartners.com