From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/48289 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: spam*.el and ifile-gnus.el? Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:06:09 -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: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1041189207 5031 80.91.224.249 (29 Dec 2002 19:13:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 19:13:27 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from util1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.22]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18SisG-0001Iw-00 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2002 20:13:24 +0100 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by util1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18SilX-0006Bk-00; Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:06:27 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:07:18 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from ns2.beld.net (ns2.beld.net [208.229.215.82]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09831 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:07:05 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from heechee.beld.net (dhcp-0-30-bd-1-93-b2.cpe.beld.net [24.233.65.6]) by ns2.beld.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755883B89B for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:06:07 -0500 (EST) Original-To: ding@hpc.uh.edu 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@hpc.uh.edu In-Reply-To: (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of "Sun, 29 Dec 2002 18:42:00 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:48289 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:48289 On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, larsi@gnus.org wrote: > Ted Zlatanov writes: > >> This is (to quote the comment) a bit raw, but the idea is that >> whatever is marked as spam when you exit a spam group should be >> reported as spam. Reporting may mean bogofilter processing, ifile >> submission, or submission to a spam service. > > But the submission thing hasn't been written yet, I guess? Not AFAIK. I would allow the user to pipe it through an external submitter, because the spam reporting logic is very complex if done right. Of course, these days reporting spam is becoming less useful since spammers have started forging the message headers that let users trace the message to the origin. >> Ideas and patches to spam.el are welcome, of course. > > I want to use spam.el now, but I'm not quite sure what's the > recommended thing to use. I think I want to let my mail be split as > I normally do now, but have the non-classified mail be passed to > something that will say whether it's spam or not. Which is provided > nicely by spam.el, but I wonder whether bogofilter or ifile is > bestest? That decision is up to you - spam.el is just intended to be a way for users to choose their preferred way of sorting spam from non-spam. Bogofilter is decent, and Kai and others swear by ifile. I don't like statistical spam filters, personally, because they are easily fooled. Legitimate messages can look like spam (for instance, a report of spam that crashes Gnus); spammers can easily insert legitimate text in the message to offset word and sentence statistics. I know statistical analysis is fashionable now, but there's no way short of designing a full AI that spam can be identified by content analysis. We call a message spam when it's unsolicited, commercial, and annoying. Content can only determine the commercial nature of a message, and even that is somewhat doubtful. There's lots of messages that meet only 2 of those three criteria. I wouldn't want to classify those messages as spam. I think ORDB and such are the best way to detect spam. Unfortunately blackholes don't work in spam.el because of a bug in the DNS code I reported a while ago; you may want to take a look at that. I don't think it was ever fixed, but Simon Josefsson may have looked at it. > (And gnus-ifile.el isn't in the Gnus distribution. It probably > should be, right?) That's up to the gnus-ifile.el author, I think he wanted to wait until the package works with more backends. I'm coming out of a long Christmas break, sorry if I'm forgetting something... My brain is not up to non-holiday speed yet :) Ted