Re: bug in spam.el and expiry issue

[Bruce Stephens <bruce+usenet@cenderis.demon.co.uk>]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, bruce+usenet@cenderis.demon.co.uk wrote:

[...]

>> Secondly, how do I sanely use spam.el with auto-expire (or
>> total-expire)?  It seems that spam gets categorised OK, but the ham
>> never gets processed, since (presumably) by the time the check
>> happens, it's marked with E, which is correctly not processed.
>
> Ham will only get processed in ham groups, are you sure you are in a
> ham group and have a ham processor defined?

Hmm.  I'm pretty sure, but I'll recheck.

> The processing should happen before the expired-mark is applied, but
> I have not tested that particular setup, so if you could check and
> let me know, I'd appreciate it.  I may have to modify the behavior
> of total and auto expiry a little when spam.el hooks into the
> summary exit, if the expiry happens before spam-summary-prepare-exit
> is invoked.

It's probably not important that auto-expiry work (indeed, I don't
think it's possible, since auto-expiry marks things for expiry as soon
as you read them).  But total-expire really does need to work, since I
suspect most people who use gnus for email will have most groups set
to total-expire (indeed, the manual suggests that that's true).