On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:28PM EDT, Thomas Roessler wrote: > On 2004-07-12 13:00:51 -0500, David Champion wrote: > > 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? As far as I'm concerned, anything's good as long as I can undo it without quitting Mutt. I already hate having to restart Mutt for color changes to take effect, and I'd hate to have to restart it for "header catching" changes, as well. Even for a simple case like only using it for its intended purpose (SPAM), you may have different ideas about SPAM in different folders. If you can't undo a spam statement, you can't change folders without quitting Mutt. Remember: you already can't do different color setups in different folders without using my display_filter (and don't forget to set $allow_ansi), which I wish I didn't need. Do we want to duplicate the problem for the spam statement? Just my two agorot (100 agorot == 1 shekel == about 22 cents), - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpx59tjKROxv.pgp
Description: PGP signature