From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/55256 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Xavier Maillard Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Spam.el tutorial Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:29:09 +0100 Organization: GNU Rox ! Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <87pteok281.fsf@emptyhost.emptydomain.de> <4nn09sbhvy.fsf@collins.bwh.harvard.edu> <87brq8h3g0.fsf@emptyhost.emptydomain.de> <877k0wh39f.fsf@emptyhost.emptydomain.de> <4nekv4be8i.fsf@collins.bwh.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1071638985 21419 80.91.224.253 (17 Dec 2003 05:29:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:29:45 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ding-owner+M3796@lists.math.uh.edu Wed Dec 17 06:29:42 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AWUFh-00014d-00 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:29:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1AWUFB-00018x-00; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:29:09 -0600 Original-Received: from justine.libertine.org ([66.139.78.221] ident=postfix) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1AWUF2-00018p-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:29:01 -0600 Original-Received: from smtp.gnu-rox.org (rms.gnu-rox.org [213.41.134.247]) by justine.libertine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AADB73A0043 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:28:59 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from totoz.gnu-rox.org.gnu-rox.org (totoz.gnu-rox.org [10.0.0.3]) by smtp.gnu-rox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545703E4FB for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:32:49 +0100 (CET) Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Whatever: no X-Url-GnusFr: http://www.gnusfr.org X-Url-EmacsFr: http://www.emacsfr.org X-In-No-Sense: Nonsense X-Home-Page: http://www.gnu-rox.org/~zedek/cgi-bin/wiki.pl X-Gpg-Key-ID: 1E028EA5 X-Gpg-Fingerprint: FDB0 EE1F 33E5 8C22 5E3E 96E7 6900 CA9B 1E02 8EA5 X-Gpg-Affinity: Will accept encrypted message for GNUpg X-Face: 63TbQAY?C>dKDtNNr7 (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:16:13 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:55256 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:55256 Ted Zlatanov disait r=E9cemment que : > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, kai@emptydomain.de wrote: > >> I think *now* I understand: spam-autodetect can do like spam-split, >> but without splitting. > > Yes, using all articles or only the unseen ones (default is unseen). > When you enter an autodetected group you'll basically run spam-split > on all those articles. But you can specify whatever spam-split > methods you want to use. > >> For me, spam splitting is done on the server side with bogofilter, >> and there is no easy way for me to tell Gnus to invoke bogofilter on >> the server side. So spam-autodetect is out, I guess. > > You can still use spam-use-BBDB, spam-use-blacklist, > spam-use-blackholes, etc. Is it recommended to 'mix' the spam methods ? I mean if I want to use all spam methods at once, is this supposed to work or may I expect some bad side effects (except the slowness of spam detection) ? >> (I'd need a local bogofilter database it seems. Wonder whether it's >> worth it. Maybe NOCEM can help? What does it do, anyway? There is >> a vague connection between NOCEM and spam in my mind.) > [...] > I've promised I'll stop adding spam.el features, so I won't do this > for No Gnus, but the next features of spam.el will be mass spam Are we in the No Gnus development cycle yet ? I asked it not that long and nobody answered.=20 > detection and better summary display of spam. Mass spam detection > will be able to invoke certain programs once for a whole bunch of > articles, which will make spam autodetection much faster. In fact, > people may start using spam autodetection instead of incoming mail > splitting :) Does this mean incoming mail splitting for spam will disappear soon ? I am currently actively testing your spam autodetection new features and it really works/rocks :) > Ted --=20 .o. Xavier Maillard Tel: +33 6 62 59 68 62 ..o=20=20 ooo=20=20=20