From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/49762 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: spam.el buglets. Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 23:50:04 -0500 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: <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 1044160798 3159 80.91.224.249 (2 Feb 2003 04:39:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 04:39:58 +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 18fBvA-0000oi-00 for ; Sun, 02 Feb 2003 05:39:56 +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 18fBwK-00023T-00; Sat, 01 Feb 2003 22:41:08 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sat, 01 Feb 2003 22:42:05 -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 WAA09565 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 22:41:51 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 79873 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2003 04:40:50 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 79865 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2003 04:40:50 -0000 Original-Received: from ns3.beld.net (208.229.215.83) by 66.230.238.6 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2003 04:40:50 -0000 Original-Received: from heechee.beld.net (dhcp-0-30-bd-1-93-b1.cpe.beld.net [24.233.67.61]) by ns3.beld.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1FE3B905; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 23:40:48 -0500 (EST) Original-To: Malcolm Purvis 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: Malcolm Purvis , ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (Malcolm Purvis's message of "Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:37:49 +1100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090015 (Oort Gnus v0.15) Emacs/21.2 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49762 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49762 On Sun, 02 Feb 2003, malcolmpurvis@optushome.com.au wrote: >>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Zlatanov writes: > Ted> Spam processors make sense for any group (including ham > Ted> groups), so we need to distinguish between spam and ham > Ted> 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. Well, ifile for instance is good at filtering messages into categories, but I don't personally like the way it classifies spam. I'd want it to only process ham, and I'd want Bogofilter to handle all spam processing. Then I'd split incoming mail with Bogofilter first, and then with ifile (so that Bogofilter will eliminate new spam). Does that make sense? I guess we could have a spam-exit-process-bogofilter symbol that would activate both the ham and the spam Bogofilter processor. Would that be useful? > 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! Sorry about that. Do you have suggestions for improving the manual? Ted