From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/49759 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Malcolm Purvis Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: spam.el buglets. Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:37:49 +1100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <4nadhmcvu8.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1044157031 27097 80.91.224.249 (2 Feb 2003 03:37:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 03:37:11 +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 18fAwP-00072u-00 for ; Sun, 02 Feb 2003 04:37:09 +0100 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 18fAxP-0001dP-00; Sat, 01 Feb 2003 21:38:11 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sat, 01 Feb 2003 21:39:08 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (sclp3.sclp.com [66.230.238.2]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA09451 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:38:56 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 77989 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2003 03:37:55 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 77984 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2003 03:37:55 -0000 Original-Received: from mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au (210.49.20.136) by 66.230.238.6 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2003 03:37:55 -0000 Original-Received: from c18072.rivrw2.nsw.optusnet.com.au (c18072.rivrw2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.28.55.173]) by mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h123boc26853; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:37:51 +1100 Original-To: Malcolm Purvis X-Face: "t>8w.Nd-q:ml[PuI`{tr%l5Y~,sBj?fR1G.q`GM6)3RK+ll4EOE_1Goun~_6nt.5q,rU]` Q,Kxq+|~kZdSuw`3)>5+_/EcS2MS={U]o-eU!y?G(&'dd~\jX|faymzH|72n4oPxOu8c0M2FroLHaA g%#ZHX\p3dIud>Y'+?-@!Om%Z(D2.Fp<*bS8W2Q'{*"WmzMrRZj%)1=|J#3:[`vYdisIP7:`as5Qku ,M(VrTIClqxpH4Z7,_$?ugTWyMq=DQjGEP*M4*/S{Ym{,uq')-b@i_ECSi;Gq+Z[I=kdtX In-Reply-To: <4nadhmcvu8.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:05:03 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090015 (Oort Gnus v0.15) XEmacs/21.4 (Native Windows TTY Support, powerpc-unknown-linux) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49759 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49759 >>>>> "Ted" == Ted Zlatanov writes: Ted> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, malcolmpurvis@optushome.com.au wrote: >> 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. Ted> Spam processors make sense for any group (including ham groups), so we Ted> need to distinguish between spam and ham processors. I can see the value in having different groups (even the same group) processed with different spam processors, but not the ability for a given processor to handle a group's ham but not spam. ie, why would I want bogofilter to progress a group's ham but not spam. Surely a more general 'feed everything in this group to bogofilter (and/or whatever) would be easier to understand. BTW, this is what happened to me. For a week or so I all of my spam being sent to bogofilter, but none of the ham, and I was wondering what was going on! Malcolm -- Malcolm Purvis The hidden, terrible cost of nuclear warfare is Really Bad Public Art. - Angus McIntyre, alt.peeves, 13/3/02.