From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/46213 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Paul Graham on fighting SPAM Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:32:12 -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: <87d6sf42ys.fsf@emacswiki.org> <871y8u7un8.fsf@emacswiki.org> <87fzxa7ala.fsf@emacswiki.org> <87d6se9dsy.fsf@emacswiki.org> <87vg637hvh.fsf@emacswiki.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1030033785 14447 127.0.0.1 (22 Aug 2002 16:29:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:29:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org 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 17huq6-0003kn-00 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:29:42 +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 17huqK-0001Hd-00; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:29:56 -0500 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:30:27 -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 LAA00913 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:30:15 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (qmail 17051 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2002 16:29:39 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 17046 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2002 16:29:39 -0000 Original-Received: from ns1.beld.net (208.229.215.81) by gnus.org with SMTP; 22 Aug 2002 16:29:39 -0000 Original-Received: from heechee.beld.net (dhcp-0-50-8b-df-51-5e.cpe.beld.net [65.202.179.253]) by ns1.beld.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06503B86A; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:29:37 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: Alex Schroeder 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: Alex Schroeder , ding@gnus.org Original-Lines: 58 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:46213 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:46213 On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, alex@emacswiki.org wrote: > When the user leaves the summary buffer, there are five > possibilities: > > 1. The message was new and the user thinks it is non-spam. Call > spam-stat-buffer-is-non-spam. Those articles do not have the spam-mark. We should make it optional for users to process all non-spam articles this way (since some backends may be too slow). Also, we need a way to mark that articles have been run through the process already - I can't think of such a way. > 2. The message was new and the user thinks it is spam. Call > spam-stat-buffer-is-spam. 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? Will your stats code be a part of Gnus? Would you like to merge it with spam.el, so all the spam code is in one place? > 3. The message was old and marked as spam but the user no longer > thinks it is spam. Call spam-stat-buffer-change-to-non-spam. > 4. The message was old and marked as non-spam but the user now > thinks it is spam. Call spam-stat-buffer-change-to-spam. > 5. The message is old and its spam-status unchanged, or unread. > Nothing happens. Messages should be marked as spam only once, and I think they should be marked as expired once they are processed as spam at the summary exit hook. Are you suggesting that we leave the spam-mark on? It's a primary mark, so it can't coexist with the read or unread or expired marks. So I don't think there's a way currently to have a message be both old and marked as spam. We could make the spam mark a secondary mark, but the original idea was to have spam marked once, processed, and expired. I'd like to know if anyone thinks the spam messages should be kept around in a way that expiration (deletion or to a folder) can't handle. > Note that I posted a new version to g.e.sources, which requires less > effort to build, can be updated on the fly, and has a tiny testing > infrastructure, plus test data by myself with a tiny set of mails. I saw that, it looks great. I'd love to hook or include it into spam.el. -- Teodor Zlatanov "Brevis oratio penetrat colos, longa potatio evacuat ciphos." -Rabelais