From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/64904 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: spam.el: copy/move of ham articles from unclassified groups Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:04:19 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: References: <871widispy.fsf@rash.quadium.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1183741555 23195 80.91.229.12 (6 Jul 2007 17:05:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:05:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Tim Howe , Ding Mailing List Original-X-From: ding-owner+M13414@lists.math.uh.edu Fri Jul 06 19:05:53 2007 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1I6rFB-0002IM-44 for ding-account@gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:05:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1I6rF2-0001Ay-1H; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:05:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1I6rF0-0001Ad-LM for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:05:10 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I6rEw-0000Jp-3m for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:05:10 -0500 Original-Received: from blockstar.com ([170.224.69.95] helo=mail.blockstar.com) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1I6rEv-0002Yz-00 for ; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:05:05 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz (unknown [69.25.70.4]) by mail.blockstar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 774A13E81A2; Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.gnus X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6;d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/22.0.96 (darwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:G9LVO7OSbASjha/B3IYJQC+tMUA= Mail-Followup-To: Tim Howe , Ding Mailing List In-Reply-To: <871widispy.fsf@rash.quadium.net> (Tim Howe's message of "Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:43:05 -0400") Posted-To: gnu.emacs.gnus X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:64904 Archived-At: The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to gnu.emacs.gnus as well. On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:43:05 -0400 Tim Howe wrote: TH> Mail is split according to senders, then if none matches the spam TH> splitter is used. nnml:raw.spammy is my spam split destination; all TH> the rest goes to nnml:raw. These 2 groups are unclassified (neither TH> spam nor ham). Tim, sorry for the late reply. I cc-ed your e-mail address to make sure you'd get it. TH> I have a single group classified as spam: nnml:spam.explicit. This is TH> my spam process destination. TH> All other groups are classified as ham. TH> Currently my workflow is as follows: enter the /nnml:raw\(\..*\)?/ TH> groups, move all the ham articles into nnml:misc to be read or manually TH> split later, then mark all the rest of the articles as spam and exit the TH> group, causing them to be processed and moved to nnml:spam.explicit. OK. TH> Now (correct me if I'm wrong) I could have /nnml:raw\(\..*\)?/ TH> classified as spam groups for the same basic effect. However I don't TH> like that I lose all the score highlighting when they are auto-marked as TH> spam, and I'm nervous about the default mark being "spam". Please tell TH> me if this is a legitimate concern. There's not much I can do about the score highlighting. I wouldn't worry about the spam mark, but honestly I would recommend a server-side filter such as CRM114 instead of the setup you describe. It's much more satisfying and about 10 times easier to train on error than train your filters all the time. TH> I'm thinking what I will do is implement an interactive function which TH> overrides the ! key in the raw groups. It will remove all marks and TH> move the article into nnml:misc. TH> Is there a reason that gnus-ham-process-destinations only works for spam TH> groups and not in non-ham groups? The assumption is that if you want to process things as ham, it's because they were marked as spam beforehand. The anti-spam systems I know don't need to be told they did the right thing with ham. If that's not true, let me know what you think. TH> If the registry is used that should avoid double-processing TH> concerns, no? It should if I fixed my code :) I've been too swamped to look at it, and the gnus-registry has not been maintained by anyone meanwhile. I know I had at least one bug report regarding double processing. I am cc-ing the Gnus developers list in case someone is interested in taking over spam.el and gnus-registry.el since I'm unable to keep them current and respond to bug reports quickly. Ted