splitting docs

splitting docs

[Richard Riley]

I'm still trying to get spam splitting working properly - I keep getting
sequencep errors having used the samples in the docs. 

I noticed this though while looking for other examples

(gnus) SpamOracle

,----
|    To enable SpamOracle usage by `spam.el', set the variable
| `spam-use-spamoracle' to `t' and configure the `nnmail-split-fancy' or
| `nnimap-split-fancy'.  *Note Spam Package::.  In this example the
| `INBOX' of an nnimap server is filtered using SpamOracle.  Mails
| recognized as spam mails will be moved to `spam-split-group', `Junk' in
| this case.  Ham messages stay in `INBOX':
| 
|      (setq spam-use-spamoracle t
|            spam-split-group "Junk"
|            ;; for nnimap you'll probably want to set nnimap-split-methods, see the manual
|            nnimap-split-inbox '("INBOX")
|            nnimap-split-fancy '(| (: spam-split) "INBOX"))
`----

I believe, but am not sure, that nnimap-split-inbox is now obsolete and
replaced with nnimap-inbox??

But while you're reading

 ;(setq nnimap-split-fancy '(| (: spam-split) "INBOX"))
 ;(setq nnimap-split-methods 'nnimap-split-fancy)
 
 ;(setq nnmail-split-fancy '("SYS-INBOX"))
 ;(setq nnmail-split-methods 'nnmail-split-fancy)

Whats wrong with the code above for nnmail and nnimap splitting? Its
probably the quotes, but I cant seem to get the correct combination. I
get sequencep errors when I restart gnus.  I tried grepping the mail
list too and so it seems I'm not alone in finding it rather
confusing. Are the quotes different when using setq compared to when
passing to the server constructors in gnus-secondary-select-methods?

I feel rather lame asking the same Q again and again, but I just cant
seem to get it right ;( Some clearer "easy" examples at the start of the
splitting sections might be an idea during the sanitisation phase). I've
used Gnus for a few years now with splitting working so I'm at a loss to
explain my current uselessness with it!

Re: splitting docs

[Andreas Schwab]

Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:

>  ;(setq nnmail-split-fancy '("SYS-INBOX"))

Why do you think this is a valid split?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: splitting docs

[Richard Riley]

Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:

> Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:
>
>>  ;(setq nnmail-split-fancy '("SYS-INBOX"))
>
> Why do you think this is a valid split?
>
> Andreas.

I dont. I varied it. It has been 

 ;(setq nnmail-split-fancy '(| "SYS-INBOX"))

I found various types of examples and its hard to pinpoint which are
correct for this version of gnus. 

It was the nnimap one I was having issues with : the nnmail is left
commented out .

Is the nnimap one ok?

FWIW, I see no reason why the above shouldn't be by a valid split if only
for "idiots like me" ;) There does seem some type checking is done at
split time to correct handle different split list elements.

Re: splitting docs

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:

> I believe, but am not sure, that nnimap-split-inbox is now obsolete and
> replaced with nnimap-inbox??

Yes.

> But while you're reading
>
>  ;(setq nnimap-split-fancy '(| (: spam-split) "INBOX"))
>  ;(setq nnimap-split-methods 'nnimap-split-fancy)
>
>  ;(setq nnmail-split-fancy '("SYS-INBOX"))
>  ;(setq nnmail-split-methods 'nnmail-split-fancy)

If

(| (stuff ...) "INBOX")

is a valid split, then

(| "INBOX")

is, too, as well as

"INBOX"

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: splitting docs

[Richard Riley]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:
>
>> I believe, but am not sure, that nnimap-split-inbox is now obsolete and
>> replaced with nnimap-inbox??
>
> Yes.
>
>> But while you're reading
>>
>>  ;(setq nnimap-split-fancy '(| (: spam-split) "INBOX"))
>>  ;(setq nnimap-split-methods 'nnimap-split-fancy)
>>
>>  ;(setq nnmail-split-fancy '("SYS-INBOX"))
>>  ;(setq nnmail-split-methods 'nnmail-split-fancy)
>
> If
>
> (| (stuff ...) "INBOX")
>
> is a valid split, then
>
> (| "INBOX")
>
> is, too, as well as
>
> "INBOX"

(setq nnimap-split-fancy '(| (: spam-split) "INBOX"))
(setq nnimap-split-methods 'nnimap-split-fancy)

So whats wrong with the above?

Should it work?

If you say it *should* work, I'll post the backtrace.

Re: splitting docs

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:

> (setq nnimap-split-fancy '(| (: spam-split) "INBOX"))
> (setq nnimap-split-methods 'nnimap-split-fancy)
>
> So whats wrong with the above?
>
> Should it work?

I don't really know -- I don't know how spam-split works.  Anybody?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: splitting docs

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:57:58 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> writes:
>> (setq nnimap-split-fancy '(| (: spam-split) "INBOX"))
>> (setq nnimap-split-methods 'nnimap-split-fancy)
>> 
>> So whats wrong with the above?
>> 
>> Should it work?

LMI> I don't really know -- I don't know how spam-split works.  Anybody?

It's just a function that returns either `spam-split-group' or nil.

Ted

Re: splitting docs

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

>>> (setq nnimap-split-fancy '(| (: spam-split) "INBOX"))
>>> (setq nnimap-split-methods 'nnimap-split-fancy)
>>> 
>>> So whats wrong with the above?
>>> 
>>> Should it work?
>
> LMI> I don't really know -- I don't know how spam-split works.  Anybody?
>
> It's just a function that returns either `spam-split-group' or nil.

Then I guess it should work?  Except for the nnimap things being method
slots and not variables.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: splitting docs

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 04:04:24 +0100 Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>>>> (setq nnimap-split-fancy '(| (: spam-split) "INBOX"))
>>>> (setq nnimap-split-methods 'nnimap-split-fancy)
>>>> 
>>>> So whats wrong with the above?
>>>> 
>>>> Should it work?
>> 
LMI> I don't really know -- I don't know how spam-split works.  Anybody?
>> 
>> It's just a function that returns either `spam-split-group' or nil.

LI> Then I guess it should work?  Except for the nnimap things being method
LI> slots and not variables.

Yeah, that's the problem.  I think you (or I) should write a "split
methods verifier" that tells you, given your current configuration, what
Gnus will do when splittin' time comes.

Ted

Re: splitting docs

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> Yeah, that's the problem.  I think you (or I) should write a "split
> methods verifier" that tells you, given your current configuration, what
> Gnus will do when splittin' time comes.

Heh.  I think that's quite difficult.  The variables will be used as
defaults for the slots (sort of), but you won't be able to see easily
whether a different set of values will eventually be substituted once
the select method has been "activated".  I mean, in case you have more
than one nnimap backend.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: splitting docs

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:08:48 -0800 Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> Yeah, that's the problem.  I think you (or I) should write a "split
>> methods verifier" that tells you, given your current configuration, what
>> Gnus will do when splittin' time comes.

LI> Heh.  I think that's quite difficult.  The variables will be used as
LI> defaults for the slots (sort of), but you won't be able to see easily
LI> whether a different set of values will eventually be substituted once
LI> the select method has been "activated".  I mean, in case you have more
LI> than one nnimap backend.

Maybe then talk more at splittin' time, explaining "I found this info in
the split slot, and it's fancy, and like my cousin is single and totally
into you so she asked for your number, and oh here's a spam message..."

Ted

Re: splitting docs

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> Maybe then talk more at splittin' time, explaining "I found this info in
> the split slot, and it's fancy, and like my cousin is single and totally
> into you so she asked for your number, and oh here's a spam message..."

There's the split trace buffer already (if you switch on split tracing),
but perhaps it's not chatty enough?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: splitting docs

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:28:50 -0800 Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> Maybe then talk more at splittin' time, explaining "I found this info in
>> the split slot, and it's fancy, and like my cousin is single and totally
>> into you so she asked for your number, and oh here's a spam message..."

LI> There's the split trace buffer already (if you switch on split tracing),
LI> but perhaps it's not chatty enough?

Well, obviously it doesn't have enough social engagement info :)

Split tracing is done once we have the split rules.  The difficulty for
all the users seems to be the part where the nn* backend discovers that
the split rules are data or a function and then calls them.  That part
has been stumping people for a few weeks now.

Ted

Re: splitting docs

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> Split tracing is done once we have the split rules.  The difficulty for
> all the users seems to be the part where the nn* backend discovers that
> the split rules are data or a function and then calls them.  That part
> has been stumping people for a few weeks now.

Yes...  but have we looked into making the splitting less, er,
people-stumping?  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: splitting docs

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:09:02 -0800 Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> Split tracing is done once we have the split rules.  The difficulty for
>> all the users seems to be the part where the nn* backend discovers that
>> the split rules are data or a function and then calls them.  That part
>> has been stumping people for a few weeks now.

LI> Yes...  but have we looked into making the splitting less, er,
LI> people-stumping?  :-)

Not unless Emacs Lisp is taught in schools :)

Ted