Re: spam/ham exit processors

[Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003, rra@stanford.edu wrote:
>> Kai Grossjohann <kai@emptydomain.de> writes:

>>> Oh!  Does this mean that people could set
>>> gnus-spam-process-destinations to nnml:spam, say, then set the
>>> spam-process parameter just on nnml:spam, for it to be added to the
>>> blacklist or whatever?  (Whereas spam-process remains unset/nil in all
>>> other groups except nnml:spam?)

>> When I tried to do that, I discovered that I had to look at all of the
>> spam twice in order to get it registered.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "look at" and "registered" - can you
> clarify the process and where the bug/problem was?

Oh, that's right, it wasn't to get it registered.  I'm remembering more of
this now.

What happened when I set a process destination is that all the spam would
get moved into that group and show up as new unread messages there.  So
when I went to do my false positive scan, I would end up scanning through
all those messages again, even though I'd already manually confirmed that
they were spam.

And depending on how I set things up, I'd either end up registering that
spam twice (once when I moved it into that group and again when I scanned
the group for false positives), or I'd end up not registering any spam
that bogofilter stuck directly into the spam group.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>