New Option - '-u' for update

[Eric Seppanen]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 04:01:34PM -0400, David Relson wrote:
> Thinking about the use of '-s' and '-n' with '-u', does the following 
> wording work:
> 
> '-u' (update) option tells bogofilter to update the appropriate wordlist 
> after classifying the text as spam or non-spam.  If the text is spam, then 
> spamlist.db is updated.  If the text is non-spam, then goodlist.db is 
> updated.  Without further qualifiers, using '-u' will _always_ update one 
> wordlist of the other.
> 
> The '-u' option may be used in combination with '-s' or '-n'.  When this is 
> done, the '-s' and '-n' options are _qualifiers_ and tell bogofilter to 
> update at most one wordlist.  The combination of '-u' and '-s' will update 
> the spam wordlist only if bogofilter classifies the text as spam.  The 
> combination of '-u' and '-n' will update the good wordlist only if 
> bogofilter classifies the text as non-spam.

I remain convinced that this is using -s and -n in "overloaded" fashion, 
and it's confusing.  I'd rather see the whole limited-update feature die 
than see it add confusion in this way.

Sooner or later we're going to need long options.  It's really easy to 
change from getopt to getopt_long, and I think it makes perfect sense to 
place more obscure features in long parameters.

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