Re: Improving the spam.el documentation.

[Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net>]

On 8 Jun 2004, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2004, daniel@rimspace.net wrote:

[...]

>> So, remove the `spam-resend-to' group parameter, replace it with
>> `spam-resend-spam-to' and `spam-resend-ham-to', and then make the
>> obvious change to the `spam-use-resend' definition and all.
>
> Hmm, I made the second one "ham-resend-to" which is convenient but
> now I'm using "ham" for spam.el variables.  I'm not sure if that's a
> big problem.

It occurred to me today that it might be a bit easier for people to deal
with the spam and ham processors in the from of two group parameters,
`spam-process' and `ham-process', rather than `spam-process' having a
`spam' or `ham' designator before each processor...

I don't know, though, if it is worth the trouble of changing over. :)
  Daniel
-- 
No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical.
        -- Niels Bohr