From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/54628 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jake Colman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: spam/ham exit processors Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 08:47:38 -0500 Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Message-ID: <76ekwpy35x.fsf@newjersey.ppllc.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1067867384 4250 80.91.224.253 (3 Nov 2003 13:49:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:49:44 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ding-owner+M3169@lists.math.uh.edu Mon Nov 03 14:49:42 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 1AGf5S-0002jy-00 for ; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:49:42 +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 1AGf3b-00021z-00; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 07:47:47 -0600 Original-Received: from justine.libertine.org ([66.139.78.221]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1AGf3U-00021t-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 07:47:40 -0600 Original-Received: from newjersey.ppllc.com (unknown [65.206.49.195]) by justine.libertine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BEC03A0078 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 07:47:39 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (from colman@localhost) by newjersey.ppllc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01595; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:47:38 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: newjersey.ppllc.com: colman set sender to colman@ppllc.com using -f Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Attribution: Jake X-URL: http://www.ppllc.com 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:54628 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:54628 >From my reading of the manual, it seems that the suggested or anticipated modus operandi is to move spam in a ham-classified group to a spam-classified group for furthur processing and to move ham from a spam-classified group over to a ham-classified group for furthur processing. In such aa situation, do you need both types of exit processors in both types of groups? Or do you just need a ham exit processors for the ham-classified group and a spam exit processor for the spam-classified group? I'm assuming that having an exit processor when you don't need one costs you a bit in performance. -- 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