From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jul 13 13:31:01 2011 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jul 2011 17:31:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qh3H3-0007Q2-72 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:31:01 -0400 Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com ([209.85.212.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qh3Gz-0007Po-GO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:30:59 -0400 Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so4488199vws.3 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:30:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.25.3 with SMTP id y3mr868720vdf.275.1310578251683; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:30:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pluto.local (207-172-223-249.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com [207.172.223.249]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a12sm1119426vdu.23.2011.07.13.10.30.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pluto.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id C9F1B7329D3; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:30:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Dave Abrahams To: submit@debbugs.gnu.org (The Gnus Bugfixing Girls + Boys) Subject: (spam-initialize) should be automatic X-Debbugs-Version: 5.110018 X-Debbugs-Package: gnus Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:30:49 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/23.3 (darwin) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) ...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 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jul 19 13:41:44 2011 Received: (at 9069) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jul 2011 17:41:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QjEIe-0004Cb-8y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:41:44 -0400 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QjEIX-0004C7-RF for 9069@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:41:37 -0400 Received: from cm-84.215.51.58.getinternet.no ([84.215.51.58] helo=quimbies.gnus.org) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QjEIK-0004sX-Js; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:41:20 +0200 From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen To: Dave Abrahams Subject: Re: (spam-initialize) should be automatic In-Reply-To: (Dave Abrahams's message of "Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:30:49 -0400") Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:33:19 +0200 Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Now-Playing: Coil's _Black Antlers_: "Teenage Lightning (10th birthday version)" X-Hashcash: 1:23:110719:dave@boostpro.com::VVOoE2sqMgGsGy8L:000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001ok+ X-Hashcash: 1:23:110719:9069@debbugs.gnu.org::vRSoKcDZJMUP/aj4:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000IMKV MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-MailScanner-ID: 1QjEIK-0004sX-Js X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1311702080.82331@N/mKY9W37PL5fIG9Qz88cw X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 9069 Cc: 9069@debbugs.gnu.org, Ted Zlatanov X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) Dave Abrahams 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/ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jan 06 18:41:11 2012 Received: (at 9069) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Jan 2012 23:41:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RjJPK-0007uS-1e for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:41:10 -0500 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RjJPH-0007uJ-TZ for 9069@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:41:08 -0500 Received: from cm-84.215.51.58.getinternet.no ([84.215.51.58] helo=stories.gnus.org) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RjJLd-0006ol-4p; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:37:21 +0100 From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen To: Dave Abrahams Subject: Re: bug#9069: (spam-initialize) should be automatic References: X-Now-Playing: Various's _Bossa Jazz (2)_: "Tamba 4 - Slick" Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:37:20 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of "Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:33:19 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-MailScanner-ID: 1RjJLd-0006ol-4p X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1326497842.32317@3bZ99Lz8rrXs2IABnk2bXA X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 9069 Cc: 9069@debbugs.gnu.org, Ted Zlatanov X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: > Dave Abrahams 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/ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jan 06 21:30:23 2012 Received: (at 9069) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Jan 2012 02:30:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RjM34-0006tu-QK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:30:23 -0500 Received: from z.lifelogs.com ([173.255.230.239]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RjM31-0006tm-Tb for 9069@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:30:20 -0500 Received: from heechee (c-76-28-40-19.hsd1.vt.comcast.net [76.28.40.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: tzz) by z.lifelogs.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02BAD6604C; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 02:26:39 +0000 (UTC) From: Ted Zlatanov To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Subject: Re: bug#9069: (spam-initialize) should be automatic Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos References: 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" Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:26:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of "Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:37:20 +0100") Message-ID: <87vcoos0ww.fsf@lifelogs.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 9069 Cc: Dave Abrahams , 9069@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:37:20 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: LMI> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: >> Dave Abrahams 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 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jan 26 12:44:31 2012 Received: (at 9069) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Jan 2012 17:44:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45781 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RqTN8-0002I9-Jo for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:44:31 -0500 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:38860) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RqTN5-0002I1-8Q for 9069@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:44:28 -0500 Received: from 93-41-173-241.ip82.fastwebnet.it ([93.41.173.241] helo=rusty) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RqTMS-00022E-8o; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:43:48 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Ted Zlatanov Subject: Re: bug#9069: (spam-initialize) should be automatic References: <87vcoos0ww.fsf@lifelogs.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:43:46 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87vcoos0ww.fsf@lifelogs.com> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:26:39 -0500") Message-ID: <871uqmmka5.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-MailScanner-ID: 1RqTMS-00022E-8o X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1328204628.58116@8tC7SYHXC/pxOTEf7vB03A X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 9069 Cc: Dave Abrahams , 9069@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) Ted Zlatanov 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 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Dec 25 11:54:41 2012 Received: (at 9069) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Dec 2012 16:54:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59400 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TnXm0-0007r6-Fe for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 11:54:41 -0500 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:53168) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TnXls-0007qr-Vo for 9069@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 11:54:34 -0500 Received: from ip-90-20-179-93.dialup.ice.net ([93.179.20.90] helo=rusty) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TnXl6-0004W9-7w; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 17:53:41 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Ted Zlatanov Subject: Re: bug#9069: (spam-initialize) should be automatic References: <87vcoos0ww.fsf@lifelogs.com> <871uqmmka5.fsf@gnus.org> X-Now-Playing: Winston Tong's _Theoretically Chinese_ Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 17:53:36 +0100 In-Reply-To: <871uqmmka5.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:43:46 +0100") Message-ID: <87pq1y5azz.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130006 (Ma Gnus v0.6) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-MailScanner-ID: 1TnXl6-0004W9-7w X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1357059221.31989@Jq9ibjzxMIRDADwwpTKxYA X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 9069 Cc: Dave Abrahams , 9069@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > Ted Zlatanov 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 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jan 30 17:59:16 2014 Received: (at 9069) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Jan 2014 22:59:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41849 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W90Zn-0001S3-1J for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:59:15 -0500 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:48686) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W90Zk-0001Ru-R0 for 9069@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:59:13 -0500 Received: from [204.14.154.233] (helo=building.gnus.org) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1W90ZW-0001hL-7e; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:58:58 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Ted Zlatanov Subject: Re: bug#9069: (spam-initialize) should be automatic References: <87vcoos0ww.fsf@lifelogs.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:58:09 -0800 In-Reply-To: <87vcoos0ww.fsf@lifelogs.com> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:26:39 -0500") Message-ID: <871tzpdqm6.fsf@building.gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-MailScanner-ID: 1W90ZW-0001hL-7e X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1391727538.71049@WDzc9epISMxRcAz/lhyiXQ X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 9069 Cc: Dave Abrahams , 9069@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Ted Zlatanov 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/ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jan 30 17:59:22 2014 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Jan 2014 22:59:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41852 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W90Zt-0001SM-3b for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:59:21 -0500 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:48693) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W90Zp-0001SC-Gi for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:59:18 -0500 Received: from [204.14.154.233] (helo=building.gnus.org) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1W90Zb-0001hS-Lo for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:59:04 +0100 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:58:15 -0800 Message-Id: <87zjmdcc1k.fsf@building.gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #9069 X-MailScanner-ID: 1W90Zb-0001hS-Lo X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1391727544.21741@l751khYmq1ddRJtE+fNTCw X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) tags 9069 fixed close 9069 24.4 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jan 31 11:41:28 2014 Received: (at 9069) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Jan 2014 16:41:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43408 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W9H9g-0002E5-PY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:41:28 -0500 Received: from mail-qc0-f180.google.com ([209.85.216.180]:42957) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W9H9b-0002Dq-6p for 9069@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:41:23 -0500 Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id i17so7264260qcy.25 for <9069@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:41:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lifelogs.com; s=google; h=from:to:cc:subject:organization:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=vuYHX86X8qurkiVzgfn5WI+HkFKS8vb2m6d/NB1ApMQ=; b=X2ZkW5qqv5I2YFV6jkIaYBvCu8JJkqMN41rjzTQ93L2PvSHKTeLcmXlv0JH/8EHPJf 1Z3LCpxo411kBJRyB40J35DnBGqXnKkm8sUlLkNS2ko8sZy0C/+GPHH0pi/px6QfH6oj chJE5Z2Wg6lB2fIASDVh0/bH+etyg7jGmsfU8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:organization:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=vuYHX86X8qurkiVzgfn5WI+HkFKS8vb2m6d/NB1ApMQ=; b=iTUQwUO3aJwInRzXwRQgYg3gO9atGJUe78GNhdbis9tUe8Skk9y1P/umQdKySKFz47 s4PzuqteE+1rGQapmrcgf7YMXrKNpp00HYwGE/c5LBmNMQvl7Oy0HCpkxYPmvwJrMdLi 4oqW0PCjovNIpv5Yj1IqBL5h9ehNfzFle3SjNjCqcgTfwMGlfN3A2FcruVABX9bACptW cWDts6y9akwgAebLnIcQqm2ptpasga9iMl4J6TaUSuOdVZ1yiow5BhTyzrH9p6kNLoZI kZ+FRPAkLBww2h7fNoLraHEjxPZ5eanpbsDxmHgqKYwBy0j46jTO3sWxB2ipjZDMNmjN zhIA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmmSPybBCdpo8fx2UL9p5ikQoc66K/ys+ZF7nCAmBInZWJboHAJXYNrHJPImcwScg3cmcrt X-Received: by 10.140.86.202 with SMTP id p68mr31344136qgd.81.1391186478555; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:41:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from flea.lifelogs.com (c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [98.229.61.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k1sm28462770qat.16.2014.01.31.08.41.17 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:41:17 -0800 (PST) From: Ted Zlatanov To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: Re: bug#9069: (spam-initialize) should be automatic Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos References: <87vcoos0ww.fsf@lifelogs.com> <871tzpdqm6.fsf@building.gnus.org> 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" Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:43:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <871tzpdqm6.fsf@building.gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:58:09 -0800") Message-ID: <87d2j8je4y.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 9069 Cc: Dave Abrahams , 9069@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:58:09 -0800 Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: LI> Ted Zlatanov 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 From unknown Sat Aug 16 10:50:49 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 12:24:07 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator