From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/57870 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: asjo@koldfront.dk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Adam_Sj=F8gren?=) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: spam.el reporting and moving ham out of spam groups. Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:15:52 +0200 Organization: koldfront - analysis & revolution, Copenhagen, Denmark Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Message-ID: <87brjv2q07.fsf@koldfront.dk> References: <8765akfxxt.fsf@enki.rimspace.net> <874qq4bjr2.fsf@koldfront.dk> <4naczvjha0.fsf@lifelogs.com> <877juzgcf8.fsf@koldfront.dk> <87hdu0gwij.fsf@koldfront.dk> <4nn03fpa10.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1086632230 863 80.91.224.253 (7 Jun 2004 18:17:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:17:10 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ding-owner+M6411@lists.math.uh.edu Mon Jun 07 20:17:00 2004 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 1BXOg7-0005eR-00 for ; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:17:00 +0200 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 1BXOfJ-0003hb-00; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 13:16:09 -0500 Original-Received: from util2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.23]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1BXOfE-0003hW-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 13:16:04 -0500 Original-Received: from justine.libertine.org ([66.139.78.221] ident=postfix) by util2.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BXOfD-000772-Kk for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 13:16:03 -0500 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.224.249]) by justine.libertine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C4073A003B for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:15:59 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BXOf8-0001kL-00 for ; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:15:58 +0200 Original-Received: from finn.gmane.org ([80.91.224.251]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:15:58 +0200 Original-Received: from asjo by finn.gmane.org with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:15:58 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Lines: 61 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: finn.gmane.org X-Face: &DfBw60^ZxI8hd?J%t&_8wW?SLF%BBx<2XQ+sXYpX!?{=0C?9D{Nc`;Eq<0d=-L User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ORFnFu+vHf48pSMzZgRX12E2FTI= Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:57870 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:57870 On 7 Jun 2004 13:12:27 -0400, Ted wrote: >> On 26 May 2004 12:16:07 -0400, Ted wrote: >>>> But shouldn't spam-process-ham-in-nonham-groups do this? If it >>>> doesn't, there's a bug in my code. >>> I just tested with latest cvs; yes it does work. >> Uh, it gets processed, but not respooled. >> Maybe I need to set "spam-move-ham-in-nonham-groups" to t? > There is no such parameter now. I know. > The logic for moving ham out of spam groups is: [...] Yes - that is what the (third part of the) patch we are discussing () changes. > The belief is that ham is already in the right place outside of spam > groups - why should you respool it? It only makes sense to process > ham outside of spam groups. That I want to change this, is an artefact stemming from the fact that I do not want spam in my spam-group automatically marked expirable.=20 Thus I keep my spam-group not classified as spam, but non-classified. > Anyhow, I guess this logic can be changed, but I don't think it > makes sense. If you mark something as ham in a non-classified group, it makes sense to process it, but not to move/respool it? Okay, I see the point - to me both choices make sense (so "my version" doesn't make _more_ sense than yours :-)) > If you feel strongly about this, and/or anyone else wants to > comment, feel free. I just don't want to make spam.el too esoteric. Don't make is more esoteric on my account. I can easily keep patching. The root of my configurations mess is that articles in groups classified as spam automatically get marked expirable (which I don't want), so if it's easier to make that configurable, that could perhaps be a compromise. It would solve the whole problem for me. Again, if you think that is making spam.el too cluttered, don't change it for just one person :-) Best regards, --=20 "Who ees thees K=E4hlveen?" Adam Sj=F8g= ren asjo@koldfront.dk