From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/54648 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Russ Allbery Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: spam/ham exit processors Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:43:23 -0800 Organization: The Eyrie Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Message-ID: <877k2h5ds4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1067895830 11615 80.91.224.253 (3 Nov 2003 21:43:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:43:50 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ding-owner+M3189@lists.math.uh.edu Mon Nov 03 22:43:47 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 1AGmUF-0006K3-00 for ; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:43:47 +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 1AGmU1-00058k-00; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 15:43:33 -0600 Original-Received: from justine.libertine.org ([66.139.78.221]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1AGmTx-00058f-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 15:43:29 -0600 Original-Received: from smtp5.Stanford.EDU (smtp5.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.30]) by justine.libertine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 960303A004F for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:43:28 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp5.Stanford.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hA3LhNtN000652 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:43:24 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: (qmail 6741 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Nov 2003 21:43:23 -0000 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: <4nllqx16ul.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:26:42 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp, linux) Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:54648 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:54648 Ted Zlatanov writes: > On Mon, 03 Nov 2003, rra@stanford.edu wrote: >> Kai Grossjohann 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)