From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.user/4031 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.user Subject: Re: bogofilter behavior Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:59:18 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <4nzn53nint.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <4nekmmaokh.fsf@lifelogs.com> <4nd625cjag.fsf@lifelogs.com> <4nvffs6vfs.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138670048 21536 80.91.229.2 (31 Jan 2006 01:14:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:14:08 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: nobody Tue Jan 17 17:33:08 2006 Original-Path: quimby.gnus.org!newsfeed.gazeta.pl!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.gnus Original-X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de LCjITSKA3N/DCQ4tIarkdQP8JV5Nel8g0ARznQe6gWtPK6EX+h X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6;d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:AZBBhZk73dDEceuk7g1SBdAv5Hg= Original-Xref: bridgekeeper.physik.uni-ulm.de gnus-emacs-gnus:4172 Original-Lines: 30 X-Gnus-Article-Number: 4172 Tue Jan 17 17:33:08 2006 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.user:4031 Archived-At: On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, matthias.andree@gmx.de wrote: > Looking at the NEWS file however I can only again discourage using > bogofilter versions that old. Missing features, missing tuning, missing > accuracy, and so on. Can any other Bogofilter users comment please? If this is the general sentiment I'll gladly go with Matthias. > Whether you use 0.11.2 or 0.92.4, -n -N -s -S are the same. Versions > before 0.11 used -S instead of -Ns and -N instead of -Sn. My point is that the switches may change again. I'll assume they are stable for now. > I do believe your fear for bogus bug reports is unsubstantiated if > the refusal is worded properly, something along the lines "Sorry, > spam.el is not compatible with your older version of bogofilter but > has been developed with a more recent bogofilter version in mind. If > you plan to upgrade your bogofilter version; spam.el requires at > least bogofilter version 0.11.2, it is advisable to get at least > 0.15.13 though." OK, I can put that in spam.el, I would just like one more vote for it so I know people are using the bogofilter support :) I'll make it conditional on whether spam-use-bogofilter is set when spam.el is loaded. Ted