From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/46216 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 14:42:08 -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 1030041594 10933 127.0.0.1 (22 Aug 2002 18:39:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:39:54 +0000 (UTC) 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 17hws3-0002q7-00 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:39:51 +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 17hws7-0001uu-00; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:39:55 -0500 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:40:26 -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 NAA01085 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:40:11 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (qmail 19983 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2002 18:39:35 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 19978 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2002 18:39:35 -0000 Original-Received: from ns3.beld.net (208.229.215.83) by gnus.org with SMTP; 22 Aug 2002 18:39:35 -0000 Original-Received: from heechee.beld.net (dhcp-0-50-8b-df-51-5e.cpe.beld.net [65.202.179.253]) by ns3.beld.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A073B8B4 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: ding@gnus.org 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: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE's message of "Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:57:19 +0200") Original-Lines: 52 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:46216 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:46216 On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE wrote: > Ted Zlatanov 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 "Brevis oratio penetrat colos, longa potatio evacuat ciphos." -Rabelais