From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bastien Guerry Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: rmail-spam-filter.el: also match Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:07:06 +0000 Message-ID: <87odaklddh.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <87hcgdwu02.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1202940445 9109 80.91.229.12 (13 Feb 2008 22:07:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:07:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Don Saklad , Eli Zaretskii To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 13 23:07:48 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JPPlb-0007QK-35 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:07:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JPPl6-0007TV-WA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:07:17 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JPPl2-0007Sp-PM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:07:12 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JPPl1-0007Rq-Aa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:07:12 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JPPl1-0007RX-1m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:07:11 -0500 Original-Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.190]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JPPl0-0007lT-Im for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:07:10 -0500 Original-Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id f5so112923nfh.26 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:07:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:sender; bh=ZPvmbr83slkWjTTrogxh8HaLZcB0BjNwMADvvEf3UQI=; b=JWLqrnsjL4JfjOmxVfX9PsEvxDGEzmasskguTeUheN8HhYJY9JUXJf7BTSKHlln7eMj5hYCLeiZzkSjmOExKGEt2FyIfqjxkJtC+ld7etJ4Y5kEk1Qjl5V8Avgo9s1zKJBwiinD41Ot+nY+ZaBlbZ6rirJ7DTMAxX5tB23+iCzo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:sender; b=tytx3XvkeNdKKsokeOq8C3xdawJTObfoesW7BnTB9ISgP0eabW737+41LizpUyfa694QFPQomO978yFj2tkPS9h7vbnGTgZiSg+M+YDkH+dv4LvVQVzKsNqiE5j+4su7qnRS2aDTt0dv/jBhuFMK3ZAs9zCX5ku8Emly86dIIGs= Original-Received: by 10.78.107.8 with SMTP id f8mr996781huc.40.1202940429017; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:07:09 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from bzg.ath.cx ( [131.227.122.122]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d2sm4070092nfc.11.2008.02.13.14.07.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:07:07 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by bzg.ath.cx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2E3AA157B18; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:07:05 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <87hcgdwu02.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> (Bastien Guerry's message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:00:13 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:88990 Archived-At: Bastien Guerry writes: > Someone on help-gnu-emacs asked whether RMAIL could check for the > spamassassion spam headers and keep possible spam in a separate > folder for later double-check. > > Eli pointed on rmail-spam-filter.el, but currently it doesn't let the > user request a check on the X-Spam-Status header. > > The patch below fix this. > > If no objection, I will apply it tomorrow. Applied. -- Bastien