spam.el buglets.

[Malcolm Purvis <malcolmpurvis@optushome.com.au>]

Having used spam.el with bogofilter for a while I have the following comments
on this generally excellent tool:

1) gnus.texi still refers to the spam mark as 'H' instead of '$'.

2) In ham groups it looks like read messages are still sent to ham filter for
   processing even if the group is exited with 'Q'
   (gnus-summary-exit-no-update).  Is this the intended behaviour?  My
   expectation is that no such processing should occur.

3) I am having difficulty understanding the advantages of having the choice of
   both spam and ham exit processors (ie
   gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-bogofilter and
   gnus-group-ham-exit-processor-bogofilter) for a given group when only one
   will apply.  Wouldn't a more generic symbol (ie
   gnus-group-exit-processor-bogofilter) be less confusing and the appropriate
   type of exit processing determined from the group's spam/ham
   classification?

Malcolm

-- 
	       Malcolm Purvis <malcolmpurvis@optushome.com.au>

The hidden, terrible cost of nuclear warfare is Really Bad Public Art.
			        - Angus McIntyre, alt.peeves, 13/3/02.