Re: spam.el reporting and moving ham out of spam groups.

[Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net>]

On 26 May 2004, Kai Grossjohann wrote:
> Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net> writes:
>
>> Everything else will be killed or marked read, then total-expired.
>> I would rather *not* give everything the spam mark on entry either,
>> since I use score files to really obvious stuff as read.
>
> I don't understand the last sentence.  What is the problem about
> having everything get the spam mark?

Anything with the spam mark is fed to the spam processor on group exit,
which isn't desirable but can be worked around.

Using the spam mark is very visually distinctive, overriding the reduced
score, etc, visual display. While desirable elsewhere, I don't want it
here.

Adding the spam mark to articles overrides any other mark, such as Y,
then was assigned by the scoring process, etc.

> Hm.  Perhaps you can use splitting to move the really really obvious
> spam into one group, and the just-normal suspected spam into another
> group?

The maintenance cost of that would be very high. I would need to
manually edit split rules to add a new "this is spam" indication, rather
than L s s t -ing it.

The SpamAssassin score is not reliable enough an indicator - this is the
content that was ambiguous enough that I need to check for false
positives.

     Daniel

Sure, call me lazy, but it has worked to date. :)
-- 
The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the
widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the
chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it.
        -- Edward Dowling