From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/57718 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Pittman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: spam.el reporting and moving ham out of spam groups. Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:46:27 +1000 Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Message-ID: <87smdnkd7g.fsf@enki.rimspace.net> References: <8765akfxxt.fsf@enki.rimspace.net> <874qq4bjr2.fsf@koldfront.dk> 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 1085548250 24111 80.91.224.253 (26 May 2004 05:10:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 05:10:50 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ding-owner+M6258@lists.math.uh.edu Wed May 26 07:10:45 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 1BSqgf-00058i-00 for ; Wed, 26 May 2004 07:10:45 +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 1BSqgU-0005Bc-00; Wed, 26 May 2004 00:10:34 -0500 Original-Received: from util2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.23]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1BSqgK-0005BX-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 26 May 2004 00:10:24 -0500 Original-Received: from justine.libertine.org ([66.139.78.221] ident=postfix) by util2.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BSqgH-0007wD-0X for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 26 May 2004 00:10:21 -0500 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.224.249]) by justine.libertine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8E23A021C for ; Wed, 26 May 2004 00:10:20 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BSqgF-0000eg-00 for ; Wed, 26 May 2004 07:10:19 +0200 Original-Received: from 203-217-29-45.perm.iinet.net.au ([203.217.29.45]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 May 2004 07:10:19 +0200 Original-Received: from daniel by 203-217-29-45.perm.iinet.net.au with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 May 2004 07:10:19 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Lines: 49 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 203-217-29-45.perm.iinet.net.au User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:XJUUae3nP97MMum87pr8ifpBND4= Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:57718 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:57718 On 26 May 2004, Adam Sj=F8gren wrote: > On Tue, 25 May 2004 23:17:34 +1000, Daniel wrote: > >> Unfortunately, it doesn't seem possible to set spam.el to process >> messages as ham without setting the group classification as 'spam'. > > That's right, I think. > > I think spam.el would be doing "what-I-mean" more if it ham-processed > messages marked as ham in unclassified groups in addition to spam > groups (that is, all non-ham groups). That is also undesirable to me, since I want to 'train on errors' for non-spam as well. :) What I would really like to be able to do is set, on a per-group basis: 1. which (if any) spam learner is run on spam-marked articles. 2. which (if any) ham learner is run on ham-marked articles. 3. just delete the damn spam marked messages. 4. mark some-or-all messages with the spam mark by default At the moment I can't have a different configuration for 1 and 2, since only the `spam-process' group parameter is used, and that defines both the ham and spam learning side of things. I only want option 4 to turn it off since it isn't useful for a "train on errors" paradigm. :) > (If I mark something as ham, I want it ham-processed (unless it is in > a ham-group, then I've probably marked it by mistake O:-)) ...unless there is some explicit ham mark I have missed, "marked as ham" means "read, killed or scored down", at least by default... [...] > I think the jury is still out on whether the change makes sense > (except to me :-)) It doesn't make sense to me, because this "process all ham" settings seems to be the *only* difference between an "unclassified" and a "ham" group. Unless I have missed something. Daniel --=20 Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau