Re: NoCeM flakiness in 0.74 and higher

[Sudish Joseph <sudish@mindspring.com>]

In article <rv20cpt12l.fsf@sdnp5.ucsd.edu>,
David Moore <dmoore@UCSD.EDU> writes:
> some messages in them to allow a smoother transition.  You can certainly
> remove the two old names from the list if the new ones have arrived at
> your site.

Cool, I'll zap n.a.n.a as well.  Tx.

>> Here's where I stopped gnus:
>> Checking article 25608 in alt.nocem.misc for NoCeM...
>> Good signature from user "AutoMoose1 (Automated Cancelmoose)".
>> Verifying...

> 	If it was stuck verifying, you could always (setq
> gnus-nocem-verifier nil).  This is also substantially faster, at the
> cost that someone might forge a nocem posting.

Oops, I should've been clearer.  It isn't hanging--it's reading
articles that it's marked as read in NoCeM/active.  The entry for
alt.nocem.misc in my orig post is ("alt.nocem.misc" (25378 . 26700)).
But it's verifying article 25608 above.

> 	I've been thinking about a batch interface also, and might do it
> since I'm thinking of rewriting some of the nocem code to support some
> things in the soon to be official nocem BNF and prototype rfc.

Yay!  Much power to you.  :-)

> 	Yeah, that might work. :)  But I still haven't tried using
> scoring at all, hmm, maybe some time when xemacs stabilizes a bit.

You might want to look at it before you do anything to gnus-nocem.el.
The best part of the whole scoring interface/implementation is that
it's so damned flexible (bows deeply in the direction of Per and
Lars).  

In particular, using it for any data whose sole purpose is article
purging/selection is a win in many ways: easier/better to reuse
(great) code, users may use the existing score file interface to
manipulate this data, less formats used for data the better, score
processing is extremely fast, etc.

> 	There is no subject information available in the nocem control
> messages, only message id.  So you'd have to score on that.

I was thinking in terms of generating a subject score entry at the
time the actual article was encountered during scoring.  Since we have
the whole xref record, getting the subject is easy.  The (big)
drawback is that we'd need a new score field type (exactly like
'followup 'cept that it lowers the subject score).  A new score type
would be perfect for references as well: 'nocem might mean kill this
article and generate a "lower on references" entry.

Not a big deal.  A flat "lower all nocem'ed articles on msg-id and
references" is plentiful.  I wouldn't use Subject: anyway, and I doubt
many would.

Argh, I'm running speculatively at the mouth again, 
-Sudish