Re: Paul Graham on fighting SPAM

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE wrote:
> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
> 
>> For new incoming spam, should we *also* run the spam analysis on a
>> buffer that we think is spam, or is the spam analysis only for
>> buffers that the user explicitly marks as spam?
> 
> I started to compose an answer saying yes.  Then I thought about it
> and deleted it and started to compose an answer saying no.  Then I
> changed my mind again...  and then I figured that this is a
> nontrivial question.
> 
> Maybe the folks over at comp.theory.info-retrieval know more about
> this?  There should be some experts hanging out there.

I think we should make it an option, and let the user decide :)

(setq gnus-spam-stats-analyze-incoming t) ; analyze all spam, the default
(setq gnus-spam-stats-analyze-incoming 'some) ; analyze all spam submitted by user
(setq gnus-spam-stats-analyze-incoming nil) ; don't analyze spam

I think there are users that like each of the three approaches, so
trying to decide what's best for them is difficult.

So the stats analysis (Alex's work) will always be loaded in the
spam-split function in spam.el, but the gnus-spam-stats-analyze
variable will determine whether the stats analysis will be used or
not.  I think that makes sense.

I also think I'll have similar variables for ordb and blacklists:

(setq gnus-spam-check-ordb-incoming t) ; check ORDB
(setq gnus-spam-check-ordb-incoming nil) ; don't check ORDB, the default

(setq gnus-spam-check-blacklist-incoming t) ; check blacklist, the default
(setq gnus-spam-check-blacklist-incoming nil) ; don't check the blacklist

Would this be OK with everyone?  Or would people prefer the
symbol-based lists, something like

(add-to-list gnus-spam-split-incoming-checks 'ordb)
(add-to-list gnus-spam-split-incoming-checks 'blacklist)
(add-to-list gnus-spam-split-incoming-checks 'stats-analyze-all)
(add-to-list gnus-spam-split-incoming-checks 'stats-analyze-some)

It seems the latter approach is more flexible, but harder for novice
users to understand and implement.  I think the implementation will be
equally easy for both approaches.

-- 
Teodor Zlatanov <tzz@iglou.com>
"Brevis oratio penetrat colos, longa potatio evacuat ciphos." -Rabelais