New Option - '-u' for update

[David Relson]

<x-flowed>
At 02:18 PM 10/4/02, Gyepi SAM wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:39:59PM -0400, David Relson wrote:
> > In the bogofilter docs is the following sample procmail recipe:
> >
> >    :0HB
> >     * ? bogofilter
> >     {
> >             :0HBc
> >             | bogofilter -s
> >
> >             :0
> >             $MUTT/spam
> >     }
> >
> >     :0EHBc
> >     | bogofilter -n
> >
> > With the new option, the above recipe becomes much shorter, i.e.
> >
> >       :0fw
> >       | bogofilter -p -u
>
>Do I understand correctly that the
>results of the classification will used to update either the spam or 
>nonspam lists ?
>
>Sounds like in incorrect classification will reinforce further 
>mis-classifications.
>I am not opposed to it, per se, just trying to understand the ramifications.

You are correct in your interpretation of the ramifications.  In the 
original procmail recipe, bogofilter will always be run twice.  The first 
time it determines whether the input text is spam or non-spam.  The script 
then runs bogofilter a second time to update the spamlist or the 
goodlist.  The '-u' option will get the same work done in one program run.

I can see that some users might wish to use automatic updating only for the 
spamlist or the goodlist.  It would be possible to combine switches, as in 
"-u -s" or "-u -n", to mean "update the spamlist if the message is spam" or 
"... goodlist if good".  Is this reasonable, or is it too messy?


For summay digest subscription: bogofilter-digest-subscribe at aotto.com

</x-flowed>