From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/44543 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Wanted: Gnus plugin to submit spam to ordb.org Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:39:25 -0400 Organization: =?koi8-r?q?=F4=C5=CF=C4=CF=D2=20=FA=CC=C1=D4=C1=CE=CF=D7?= @ Cienfuegos Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <03662adav5.fsf@colargol.tihlde.org> <87pu0ijyrq.fsf@strauser.com> <87lmb6jxju.fsf@strauser.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1020195682 26720 127.0.0.1 (30 Apr 2002 19:41:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 19:41:22 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 172dV4-0006wr-00 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:41:22 +0200 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 172dTw-0003av-00; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:40:12 -0500 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:40:25 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (qmailr@sclp3.sclp.com [209.196.61.66]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA03966 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:40:12 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (qmail 21898 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2002 19:39:53 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 21893 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2002 19:39:53 -0000 Original-Received: from liilmtlssm01.mailtask.com (208.203.59.25) by gnus.org with SMTP; 30 Apr 2002 19:39:53 -0000 Original-Received: from LIILMTLSFE02.mailtask.com ([208.203.59.43]) by LIILMTLSSM01.mailtask.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:39:26 -0500 Original-Received: from onyx.nimbus.northernlight.com ([10.128.22.65]) by LIILMTLSFE02.mailtask.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:39:25 -0500 Original-To: ding@gnus.org 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" Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (prj@po.cwru.edu's message of "Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:13:54 -0400") Original-Lines: 58 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2 (i386-redhat-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2002 19:39:26.0026 (UTC) FILETIME=[BC6362A0:01C1F07E] Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:44543 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:44543 On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, prj@po.cwru.edu wrote: > Ted Zlatanov wrote: >> My major concern (and the reason why I haven't been doing too much >> work on this) is that generally, in Gnus marks do not trigger >> actions directly. > > The 'expire mark does, sort of. But if you'd like to avoid that, a > function could be added to gnus-summary-exit-hook to look for > articles with the spam mark and report them. This isn't too great a > one-time burden for the users, is it? On the contrary, as I said, I think it makes perfect sense :) My only concern was that other Gnus users would think it strange that marking an article suddenly takes a few seconds and actually performs an action. From the lack of an outcry, and from yours and Kai's comments, I guess everyone is OK with having the 'spam' mark trigger the spam actions. OK, for the plan of action. Note that this is very general at this point, I'm looking to define what's needed. Variable names are definitely subject to change - suggestions are welcome. Ditto for invocation methods. Let's define spam checking and reporting backends. Right now we have blacklists, whitelists, and spam-blackhole-servers: (defvar spam-blackhole-servers '("bl.spamcop.net" "relays.ordb.org" "dev.null.dk" "relays.visi.com" "rbl.maps.vix.com")) I'd like to break the blackhole servers into individual symbols. The users would say something like: (add-to-list spam-checking-backends 'spamcop) (add-to-list spam-checking-backends 'ordb) (add-to-list spam-checking-backends 'blacklist) (add-to-list spam-checking-backends 'whitelist) ; scores everything but whitelisted senders down 1000, for instance and then they would add the spam-check function to their nnml-split or nnimap-split. So we'll have spamcop, ordb, dev-null-dk, visi, vix. Or should this be a generic 'blackhole symbol which uses the list of blackhole servers? How likely is the list of blackhole servers to change or need modification by the user? Should the split function just score things down or actually move them to a "spam" forlder? The spam-reporting-backends would be triggered (as a hook) by marking an article as spam. The user would do: (add-to-list spam-reporting-backends 'blacklist) (add-to-list spam-reporting-backends 'ordb) I need lists of reporting and checking backends that don't follow the blackhole-servers conventions (using DNS for checks). See spam.el for what's already in place for blackhole checks. Thanks Ted