Re: Paul Graham on fighting SPAM

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, tzz@lifelogs.com wrote:
> Those articles have the spam-mark.  I think
> gnus-spam-stat-process-buffer looks like the right function to call
> on articles marked as spam; is there a corresponding function (or
> reuse of this one) to process articles that are *not* spam?  How do
> you want to handle the file setting for the word table - should it
> be a string passed to a setup function on your side, or should we
> keep it in your code and tell users to customize it?

Whoops.  I was looking at an older version of your code by accident.
Your message makes a lot more sense with version 0.04 :)

The functions you have are great, we just need to figure out how to
preserve the state of an article marked as spam, for the
spam<->not_spam transitions, or to go with the original idea of
expiring all spam mail that's been processed already.

For new incoming spam, should we *also* run the spam analysis on a
buffer that we think is spam, or is the spam analysis only for buffers
that the user explicitly marks as spam?

-- 
Teodor Zlatanov <tzz@iglou.com>
"Brevis oratio penetrat colos, longa potatio evacuat ciphos." -Rabelais