GNU bug report logs - #9069
(spam-initialize) should be automatic

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 9069 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 9069 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>
To: submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (The Gnus Bugfixing Girls + Boys)
Subject: (spam-initialize) should be automatic
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:30:49 -0400

...at least in some cases.

I customized my group parameters and set the spam-process-destination to
a different folder, and was absolutely baffled for the longest time as
to why spam never got moved.  It seems to me that Gnus should detect
cases where its own configuration obviously demands the use of spam.el
and initialize it if necessary.



No Gnus v0.18
GNU Emacs 23.3.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin, NS apple-appkit-1038.35)
 of 2011-03-09 on black.porkrind.org
200 news.gmane.org InterNetNews NNRP server INN 2.5.1 ready (posting ok)
101 Capability list:
VERSION 2
IMPLEMENTATION INN 2.5.1
AUTHINFO USER
HDR
LIST ACTIVE ACTIVE.TIMES DISTRIB.PATS HEADERS NEWSGROUPS OVERVIEW.FMT
OVER
POST
READER
STARTTLS
.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

Message #8 received at 9069 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>
Cc: 9069 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com>
Subject: Re: (spam-initialize) should be automatic
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:33:19 +0200

Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com> writes:

> ...at least in some cases.
>
> I customized my group parameters and set the spam-process-destination to
> a different folder, and was absolutely baffled for the longest time as
> to why spam never got moved.  It seems to me that Gnus should detect
> cases where its own configuration obviously demands the use of spam.el
> and initialize it if necessary.

I agree.

Ted, where would the best place to put this initialisation be?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

Message #11 received at 9069 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>
Cc: 9069 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com>
Subject: Re: bug#9069: (spam-initialize) should be automatic
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:37:20 +0100

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

> Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com> writes:
>
>> ...at least in some cases.
>>
>> I customized my group parameters and set the spam-process-destination to
>> a different folder, and was absolutely baffled for the longest time as
>> to why spam never got moved.  It seems to me that Gnus should detect
>> cases where its own configuration obviously demands the use of spam.el
>> and initialize it if necessary.
>
> I agree.
>
> Ted, where would the best place to put this initialisation be?

Ted, when you find some time, please have a peek at this one.  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

Message #14 received at 9069 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com>
To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>, 9069 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9069: (spam-initialize) should be automatic
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:26:39 -0500

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:37:20 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:
>> Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com> writes:
>> 
>>> ...at least in some cases.
>>> 
>>> I customized my group parameters and set the spam-process-destination to
>>> a different folder, and was absolutely baffled for the longest time as
>>> to why spam never got moved.  It seems to me that Gnus should detect
>>> cases where its own configuration obviously demands the use of spam.el
>>> and initialize it if necessary.
>> 
>> I agree.
>> 
>> Ted, where would the best place to put this initialisation be?

LMI> Ted, when you find some time, please have a peek at this one.  :-)

Sorry for the delay.

Can we do `spam-initialize' on group entry iff the spam group/topic
parameters are set AND it has not been run yet?  Or is that too
intrusive?

Ted

Message #17 received at 9069 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com>
Cc: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>, 9069 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9069: (spam-initialize) should be automatic
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:43:46 +0100

Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com> writes:

> Can we do `spam-initialize' on group entry iff the spam group/topic
> parameters are set AND it has not been run yet?  Or is that too
> intrusive?

I think that would be fine?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no  *  Sent from my Rome

Message #20 received at 9069 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com>
Cc: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>, 9069 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9069: (spam-initialize) should be automatic
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 17:53:36 +0100

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com> writes:
>
>> Can we do `spam-initialize' on group entry iff the spam group/topic
>> parameters are set AND it has not been run yet?  Or is that too
>> intrusive?
>
> I think that would be fine?

Have you had time to look at this?  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no  *  Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Message #23 received at 9069 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com>
Cc: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>, 9069 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9069: (spam-initialize) should be automatic
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:58:09 -0800

Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com> writes:

> Can we do `spam-initialize' on group entry iff the spam group/topic
> parameters are set AND it has not been run yet?  Or is that too
> intrusive?

I've now done this.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

Message #30 received at 9069 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>, 9069 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9069: (spam-initialize) should be automatic
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:43:25 -0500

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:58:09 -0800 Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> wrote: 

LI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz <at> lifelogs.com> writes:
>> Can we do `spam-initialize' on group entry iff the spam group/topic
>> parameters are set AND it has not been run yet?  Or is that too
>> intrusive?

LI> I've now done this.

Awesome.  Thank you!

Ted

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.