Re: I think I might have mistreated spam.el...

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, asf@void.at wrote:
> I just found out why I had believed there was no more spam coming to
> me. I use spam.el splitting, and I saw many "filing into
> nnml+private:spambox" (that's my spambox) messages, but not one mail
> appeared there. So now.
> After a few days of having an empty spambox, I looked into my
> nnml+private active file, and saw this:
> 
>        [...]
>      412: newsticker
>        1: not-a-mailing-list
>        [...]
> K    222: nnml+private:spambox
>        [...]
>        1: spambox
> 
> Ugggh. Which of these variables is responsible for this group name?
> Is it `spam-split-group'? If so, which value should it use? Just
> "spambox"?

Splitting functions will return a short group name, and the backend
will convert that to the fully qualified group name.  Thus,
spam-split-group should be just "spambox" or whatever you like, and
that will translate into "nnml+private:spambox" automatically.

This is a Gnus convention (nnmail-split-fancy and nnimap-split-fancy),
not something spam.el controls AFAIK.

> After that is resolved, my only problem is how to get the articles
> from nnml+private:nnml+private:spambox into nnml+private:spambox. mv
> should do it (plus faking the right .active article cound, plus
> rebuilding nov), right?

I would enter the group, select all the articles, and move them.
Should be very quick with nnml.

Ted