Hi, I just tried using spam.el to make dealing with spam easier, but ran into these problems: * ifile. I have used ifile to classify my spam&ham; does marking an article with M-d also process it as a spam article in ifile? * nnmail-split-methods. Before I had spam.el, I used (setq nnmail-split-fancy `(| (: ifile-spam-filter (| (: nnmail-split-fancy-with-parent) ;; special cases (any "plus-linux.de" "plus-linux.de") (from "HQ.ACM.ORG" "acm") (from ".*@sil.at" "Mailbox.sil") (from "mailman-owner@.*" "mailman-reminders") (to "\\(srfi-.*\\)@srfi\\.schemers\\.org" "scheme.\\1") (any "\\(srfi-.*\\)@srfi\\.schemers\\.org" "scheme.\\1") ("resent-from" "srfi-37@srfi.schemers.org" "scheme.srfi-37") ("resent-from" "\\(srfi-.*\\)@srfi\\.schemers\\.org" "scheme.\\1") (any ".*@bugs.debian.org" "debian-bugs") ;; mine (any ,gnus-ignored-from-addresses "Mailbox") ;; group parameter splitting (: gnus-group-split-fancy nil t nil) ;; "Mailbox.misc")) Now, I use: nnmail-split-fancy `(| (: spam-split) (: nnmail-split-fancy-with-parent) ;; special cases (any "plus-linux.de" "plus-linux.de") (from "HQ.ACM.ORG" "acm") (from ".*@sil.at" "Mailbox.sil") (from "mailman-owner@.*" "mailman-reminders") (to "\\(srfi-.*\\)@srfi\\.schemers\\.org" "scheme.\\1") (any "\\(srfi-.*\\)@srfi\\.schemers\\.org" "scheme.\\1") ("resent-from" "srfi-37@srfi.schemers.org" "scheme.srfi-37") ("resent-from" "\\(srfi-.*\\)@srfi\\.schemers\\.org" "scheme.\\1") (any ".*@bugs.debian.org" "debian-bugs") ;; to me (any ,gnus-ignored-from-addresses "Mailbox") ;; group parameter? (: gnus-group-split-fancy nil t nil) ;; "Mailbox.misc") IMHO, these should act identical, but they don't. In fact, I get errors every time I try to get new mails: "Error in `nnmail-split-methods'; using `bogus' mail group". I tracked the error down as far as I could, and found out that somewhere down there, an apply gets called with only one argument. I didn't dare remove the condition-case statement from nnmail.el:1043, for fear of mail loss. Is there anything wrong with my configuration or can I make this portion of code more debugable? Thanks, -- Andreas Fuchs, , asf@jabber.at, antifuchs Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=antifuchs