[Q]: Question on a spam variable

[Q]: Question on a spam variable

[Xavier Maillard]

Hello again,

The docstring for `gnus-spam-newsgroup-contents' is weird

,----[ C-h v gnus-spam-newsgroup-contents RET ]
| gnus-spam-newsgroup-contents's value is 
| (("INBOX.mail.spam" gnus-group-spam-classification-spam))
| 
| 
| *Groups in which to automatically mark new articles as spam on
| summary entry.  If non-nil, this should be a list of group name
| regexps that should match all groups in which to do automatic spam
| tagging, associated with a classification (spam, ham, or neither).
| This only makes sense for mail groups.
| 
| You can customize this variable.
| 
| Defined in `gnus'.
`----

It states that all groups listed are considered as spam groups
but we have to associate each group with a classification that
can be different from spam.

What is the purpose of the classification stuff here ? 

Regards
-- 
Xavier Maillard
http://www.gnu-rox.org/~zedek/cgi-bin/wiki.pl

Re: [Q]: Question on a spam variable

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, zedek@gnu-rox.org wrote:

> The docstring for `gnus-spam-newsgroup-contents' is weird
> 
> It states that all groups listed are considered as spam groups
> but we have to associate each group with a classification that
> can be different from spam.

Thanks for noticing that.  It's not only meaningful for mail groups
anymore, so that's another doc bug :)

I have rewritten the docsctring to:

   "*Group classification (spam, ham, or neither).  Only meaningful
when spam.el is loaded.  If non-nil, this should be a list of group
name regexps, associated with a classification.  In spam groups, new
articles are marked as spam on summary entry.  There is other behavior
associated with ham and no classification when spam.el is loaded - see
the manual."

Let me know if it's still unclear.

Ted

Re: [Q]: Question on a spam variable

[Reiner Steib]

On Mon, Feb 14 2005, Ted Zlatanov wrote:

> Thanks for noticing that.  It's not only meaningful for mail groups
> anymore, so that's another doc bug :)
>
> I have rewritten the docsctring to:
>
>    "*Group classification (spam, ham, or neither).  Only meaningful
[...]

Could you apply this and your other bug fixes and doc fixes to the
v5-10 branch (if necessary there)?

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: [Q]: Question on a spam variable

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc wrote:

On Mon, Feb 14 2005, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for noticing that.  It's not only meaningful for mail groups
>> anymore, so that's another doc bug :)
>>
>> I have rewritten the docsctring to:
>>
>>    "*Group classification (spam, ham, or neither).  Only meaningful
> [...]
> 
> Could you apply this and your other bug fixes and doc fixes to the
> v5-10 branch (if necessary there)?

I think I got the two fixes (one doc, one registry bug) that needed to
be comitted.  Thanks for reminding me.

Ted

Re: [Q]: Question on a spam variable

[Xavier Maillard]

On 14 fév 2005, Ted Zlatanov wrote:

> I have rewritten the docsctring to:
> 
> "*Group classification (spam, ham, or neither). Only meaningful
> when spam.el is loaded. If non-nil, this should be a list of
> group name regexps, associated with a classification. In spam
> groups, new articles are marked as spam on summary entry. There
> is other behavior associated with ham and no classification
> when spam.el is loaded - see the manual."
> 
> Let me know if it's still unclear.

Much more better ;) Thank you for your time.

-- 
Hacker Wonderland      Xavier Maillard| "Stand Back! I'm a programmer!"
.0.                 zedek@gnu-rox.orgz|
..0                 (+33) 326 770 221 |   Webmaster, emacsfr.org
000                  PGP : 0x1E028EA5 |    Membre de l' APRIL