Re: spam-check-BBDB bug?/bbdb whitelist split function

[Niklas Morberg <niklas.morberg@axis.com>]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> Currently, spam-split will fall through to the next
> spam/ham check on a whitelist match.
>
> I thought of having whitelists return t for a positive ham
> match, and then spam-split wouldn't examine the rest of the
> spam/ham checks but simply return nil altogether. Does that
> makes sense? 

Given that I understand you correctly: yes! I get some false
positives on mail from people who are in my BBDB when I use
spam-stat.el. If what you are writing means: turn on BBDB
whitelisting and all mail from everybody in your BBDB will
be considered ham, then I am all for it.

False positives are really really bad because it means I
have to sift through my spam group looking for valid emails.
But you knew this already.

Niklas