spam.el and Procmail splitting strategy?

spam.el and Procmail splitting strategy?

[Jody Klymak]

Hello,

I split on my IMAP server using procmail.  But I get spam in both my
Inbox and on of the mailboxes I procmail into, lets call one of them
"bbdb."  What is the best strategy for cleaning this up using spam.el?
 
The following works great for my Inbox.  But, of course, doesn't do
anything for "bbdb".  
(require 'spam)
(setq
  nnimap-split-rule 'nnimap-split-fancy
  nnimap-split-inbox "INBOX"
  nnimap-split-fancy '(|
		      (: spam-split)
		      ;; default mailbox
		      "mail/Inbox.spam"))

I'd prefer to be able to split using procmail on the server, but I
guess I'd like gnus to check for spam when it enters a group?

If its not doable, thats fine.  I'll split in gnus.

Thanks,  Jody
-- 
Jody Klymak                           104 Ocean Admin Bldg., OSU
mailto:jklymak@coas.oregonstate.edu   Corvallis OR, 97330

Re: spam.el and Procmail splitting strategy?

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2003, jklymak@coas.oregonstate.edu wrote:
> I split on my IMAP server using procmail.  But I get spam in both my
> Inbox and on of the mailboxes I procmail into, lets call one of them
> "bbdb."  What is the best strategy for cleaning this up using
> spam.el?

Hmm, spam.el assumes a single incoming point (with spam-split).  Have
you tried making nnimap-split-inbox a list of strings?  That would
defeat your procmail splitting, of course.

> The following works great for my Inbox.  But, of course, doesn't do
> anything for "bbdb".  
> (require 'spam)
> (setq
>   nnimap-split-rule 'nnimap-split-fancy
>   nnimap-split-inbox "INBOX"
>   nnimap-split-fancy '(|
> 		      (: spam-split)
> 		      ;; default mailbox
> 		      "mail/Inbox.spam"))
> 
> I'd prefer to be able to split using procmail on the server, but I
> guess I'd like gnus to check for spam when it enters a group?
> 
> If its not doable, thats fine.  I'll split in gnus.

Well, I was thinking of a 'respool spam/ham process destination, as
suggested before, which would resubmit the spam/ham mail to the spool
process from any mailbox.  Would that work for you?

I think it would be easier in the end to keep splitting on the client
side with spam.el.

Ted

Re: spam.el and Procmail splitting strategy?

[Jody Klymak]

Hi Ted,

Just realized that I never got back to you...

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> Well, I was thinking of a 'respool spam/ham process destination, as
> suggested before, which would resubmit the spam/ham mail to the spool
> process from any mailbox.  Would that work for you?

Not sure if that would work.  Does imap support re-spooling?  

I am pretty happy taking bbdb out of my .procmail and splitting it in
gnus instead.  It does, however, seem that this will end up being a
generic problem if other mail groups get infected.  Doing all my
splitting in gnus may be a good option - it just means that I
need to have a gnus running at all times on my main machine.  

It seems that it should be possible to spam-split new messages in any
group upon entry.  I guess it just doesn't fit with the existing
splitting mechanism.  Perhaps the splitting mechanism not be extended
so that the last argument in nnimap-split-fancy is something like
"current-split-inbox" instead of a single mail box?  Then I could do
something like:

(setq
  nnimap-split-rule 'nnimap-split-fancy
  nnimap-split-inbox ("INBOX" "mail/ZIn.bbdb")
  nnimap-split-fancy '(|
		       (: spam-split)
		      ;; default mailbox
		      'current-split-mailbox)
)

instead of: 
(setq
  nnimap-split-rule 'nnimap-split-fancy
  nnimap-split-inbox "INBOX"
  nnimap-split-fancy '(|
		       (: spam-split)
		       (any ".*bbdb.*" "mail/ZIn.bbdb")
		      ;; default mailbox
		      "mail/Inbox.spam")
)

Of course, I have no idea how the splitting code is written so that
may not be easy.   

> I think it would be easier in the end to keep splitting on the client
> side with spam.el.

I agree - being able to continuously train bogofilter from within gnus
is very convenient.

Thanks,   Jody

-- 
Jody Klymak                           104 Ocean Admin Bldg., OSU
mailto:jklymak@coas.oregonstate.edu   Corvallis OR, 97330

Re: spam.el and Procmail splitting strategy?

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, jklymak@coas.oregonstate.edu wrote:
> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
> 
>> Well, I was thinking of a 'respool spam/ham process destination, as
>> suggested before, which would resubmit the spam/ham mail to the
>> spool process from any mailbox.  Would that work for you?
> 
> Not sure if that would work.  Does imap support re-spooling?  

Yes, AFAIK.

> I am pretty happy taking bbdb out of my .procmail and splitting it
> in gnus instead.  It does, however, seem that this will end up being
> a generic problem if other mail groups get infected.  Doing all my
> splitting in gnus may be a good option - it just means that I need
> to have a gnus running at all times on my main machine.

Yes, that's annoying.  I tend to use IMAP for the mail I want shared
between machines, that works nicely.  Two machines running IMAP won't
conflict, you only have to make sure they are splitting the same way
(so if you use BBDB for splitting, for instance, you need to make sure
your BBDB database is synchronized between machines).

> It seems that it should be possible to spam-split new messages in
> any group upon entry.  I guess it just doesn't fit with the existing
> splitting mechanism.  Perhaps the splitting mechanism not be
> extended so that the last argument in nnimap-split-fancy is
> something like "current-split-inbox" instead of a single mail box?
[...]
> Of course, I have no idea how the splitting code is written so that
> may not be easy.

I'm afraid I'm pretty ignorant of the splitting internals.  Perhaps
someone better acquainted with them can answer.

Ted