From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/49557 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Raja R Harinath Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: new spam.el functionality Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:23:36 -0600 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <4nn0lrepl4.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <87u1fzh3zf.fsf@eris.void.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1043378601 27226 80.91.224.249 (24 Jan 2003 03:23:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 03:23:21 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18buR3-00074j-00 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 04:23:18 +0100 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 18buRb-0004cH-00; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:23:51 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:24:48 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from mail.cs.umn.edu (mail.cs.umn.edu [128.101.35.202]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA04086 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:24:39 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from bose.cs.umn.edu (bose.cs.umn.edu [128.101.35.195]) by mail.cs.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DEE111381 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:23:37 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by bose.cs.umn.edu (Postfix, from userid 818) id 0392531FE; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:23:36 -0600 (CST) Original-To: ding@hpc.uh.edu In-Reply-To: <87u1fzh3zf.fsf@eris.void.at> (Andreas Fuchs's message of "Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:52:37 +0000 (UTC)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090014 (Oort Gnus v0.14) Emacs/21.3.50 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49557 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49557 Hi, Andreas Fuchs writes: > Today, Ted Zlatanov wrote: >> Regular expression matching against headers. You define a list of >> regular expressions in spam-regex-headers-spam and >> spam-regex-headers-ham, and set spam-use-regex-headers to t. >> spam-split will invoke spam-check-regex-headers. > > Hm, isn't whitelist and blacklist functionality a subset of the regex > matching functionality? Could these three be merged easily? Also applies to spam-check-bogofilter-headers. - Hari -- Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ harinath@cs.umn.edu