New Option - '-u' for update

[Eric Seppanen]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 02:27:17PM -0400, David Relson wrote:
...
> 
> 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?

I think it would be clearer to have unique parameters.  Having -s mean a 
different thing in the presence of -u is confusing.  Maybe long parameters 
like --uspam --uham ...?

I think this is a very smart feature, because in my case I put spam in one 
mailbox file, and it's very easy to catch errors there, but my real mail 
goes into a dozen different folders, many of which I don't watch closely 
enough to catch the occasional spam.  So I'd rather not have the "ham" 
list updated automatically.

BTW, I disagree with moving back to -n from -h.  I thought the original 
move to -h made a lot of sense.  --uham is much clearer than --unonspam.
The latest change also breaks compatibility for no good reason that I can 
see.  I think there's a little bit of a "bikeshed*" tendency here, to 
spend too much effort fiddling with tiny details.

* http://a.mongers.org/clueful/1999-phk-bikeshed

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