Re: spam/ham exit processors

[Jake Colman <colman@ppllc.com>]

>>>>> "TZ" == Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

   TZ> Sure, you could have spam moved from all groups to "nnml:spam" [1] and
   TZ> then process spam only in "nnml:spam".  I do that, and furthermore I
   TZ> have the spam-process-destination parameter of "nnml:spam" set to
   TZ> "nnml:train" so I can run SpamAssassin directly on the "nnml:spam"
   TZ> group's file contents.  In "nnml:spam" I have the
   TZ> ham-process-destination set to "nnml:mail" and thus when I tick an
   TZ> article in the spam group it gets popped and ham-processed back into
   TZ> "nnml:mail".  It's a pretty tidy system.

But if spam training is done on all marked spam regardless of the group's
classificiation, assuming I read the docs correctly, then why bother moving
the spam anywhere else for processing?  Why not just specify a spam exit
processor on your ham-classified or unclassified group and let the spam get
trained that way?  Am I missing some benefit by not moving my spam into a
spam-classified group?

-- 
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