Re: [PATCH] generic spam detection
On 2004-07-12 13:00:51 -0500, David Champion wrote:
>> Lastly, I want "unspam" and "unnospam" to remove spam
>> definitions. I often misspell regexps and I have to remove such
>> entries from list.
> I was hoping to avoid this -- it didn't really seem all that useful.
> My reasoning has been that in general, a user will experiment a
> little and find some spam/nospam settings that work, then
> continue using exactly those settings for months, without ever
> entering new ones interactively. That is, there won't often be a
> need to undo, and in the initial stages where there is, it's not
> so bad to quit & restart.
> But I can see a need for this if spam/nospam are used for more than just
> spam. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
It would be consistent with behavior of other list management
functions in mutt if spam would go through the nospam list and
remove a possibly identical regular expression (in addition to
"spamming" something), and if "nospam" would go through the spam
list and remove anything matching from that one.
That said, I'm wondering if the spam/nospam stuff shouldn't reuse
the current hook framework; we'd then have "unhook" as a
coarse-grained mechanism to clean up the situation.
spam-hook, ham-hook?
--
Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.