gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[b0ef]

I've found a few threads pertaining to this, but it's still unclear to 
me if there's a way
to just directly convert gnus split rules to SIEVE format?

Any pointer as to how to do this?

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2015-09-20 19:45 +0200, b0ef@esben-stien.name wrote:

> I've found a few threads pertaining to this, but it's still unclear to
> me if there's a way to just directly convert gnus split rules to SIEVE
> format?

Not the answer you wanted, but it is very easy to write a Lisp program
to do so.

-- 
Please *no* private copies of mailing list or newsgroup messages.
Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Emanuel Berg]

Ian Zimmerman <itz@buug.org> writes:

>> I've found a few threads pertaining to this, but
>> it's still unclear to me if there's a way to just
>> directly convert gnus split rules to SIEVE format?
>
> Not the answer you wanted, but it is very easy to
> write a Lisp program to do so.

Gnus splitting rules look like this:

    (setq nnmail-split-methods
     '(("spam-ooa"     "^X-Spam-Flag: YES\\|\\(^Subject: \\(lists.bofh.it mailing list memberships reminder\\|Happy Birthday From Facebook\\)\\)")
       ("zsh"          "^\\(Cc\\|\\(Resent-\\)?To\\):.*zsh-\\(announce\\|workers\\|users\\)@zsh\.org.*")
       ("debian.user"  "^\\(Cc\\|\\(Resent-\\)?To\\):.*debian-user@lists\.debian\.org.*")
       ("cc"           "^\\(Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help\\)\\|\\(Cc\\|\\(Resent-\\)?To\\):.*\\(emacs-devel\\|help-gnu-emacs\\|info-gnus-english\\)@gnu\.org.*")
       ("spam-ooa"     "^\\(Cc\\|\\(Resent-\\)?To\\):.*l4-hackers@os\.inf\.tu-dresden\.de.*")
       ("emacs-w3m"    "^Subject: \\(Re: \\)*\\[emacs-w3m.*")
       ("mail.misc"    "") ))

(By the way, the reason I have that piece of code is
I used it to get newsgroups out of mailing lists that
way, before I realized there was Gmane which does
exactly that, and much better - so I don't recommend
anyone doing it like that, tho what I remember it
worked mostly fine.)

Anyway, SIEVE, on the other hand, looks like this:

    # Reject mails from the hunting enthusiasts at example.com.
    if header :contains "list-id" "<duck-hunting.example.com>"
    {
        reject "No violence, please";
    }

    # The two test below are equivalent;
    # The first variant is clearer and probably also more efficient.
    if address :is :domain "to" "example.com"
    {
        fileinto "examplecom";
    }
    if address :matches :all "to" "*@example.com"
    {
        fileinto "examplecom";
    }

To write a Lisp program that translates from Gnus
splitting rules into the SIEVE syntax is a challenge
to any programmer. This isn't to say anyone should do
it. It will be a big effort for a small gain.

Why not just write the SIEVE and feel good about it?
Here is a tutorial, which is also where I found the
SIEVE syntax examples:

    https://www.tty1.net/blog/2011/sieve-tutorial_en.html

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2015-09-21 00:20 +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> Gnus splitting rules look like this:
> 
>     (setq nnmail-split-methods
>      '(("spam-ooa"     "^X-Spam-Flag: YES\\|\\(^Subject: \\(lists.bofh.it mailing list memberships reminder\\|Happy Birthday From Facebook\\)\\)")
>        ("zsh"          "^\\(Cc\\|\\(Resent-\\)?To\\):.*zsh-\\(announce\\|workers\\|users\\)@zsh\.org.*")
>        ("debian.user"  "^\\(Cc\\|\\(Resent-\\)?To\\):.*debian-user@lists\.debian\.org.*")
>        ("cc"           "^\\(Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help\\)\\|\\(Cc\\|\\(Resent-\\)?To\\):.*\\(emacs-devel\\|help-gnu-emacs\\|info-gnus-english\\)@gnu\.org.*")
>        ("spam-ooa"     "^\\(Cc\\|\\(Resent-\\)?To\\):.*l4-hackers@os\.inf\.tu-dresden\.de.*")
>        ("emacs-w3m"    "^Subject: \\(Re: \\)*\\[emacs-w3m.*")
>        ("mail.misc"    "") ))

> To write a Lisp program that translates from Gnus splitting rules into
> the SIEVE syntax is a challenge to any programmer. This isn't to say
> anyone should do it. It will be a big effort for a small gain.

(Apologies in advance if long lines in Emanuel's code mess up a reader's
display.) 

It is only a challenge if you write your gnus rules like this, relying
on regexps operators instead of doing it the natural Lisp way.  Roughly
like this:

> (setq nnmail-split-methods
>  '(("spam-ooa" "^X-Spam-Flag: YES")
>    ("spam-ooa" "^Subject: lists.bofh.it mailing list memberships reminder")
>    ("spam-ooa"     "^Subject: Happy Birthday From Facebook")

I believe this style would be easy to translate.

(Btw., you can match regexps with Sieve too, at least with a decent
implementation which includes the requisite plugin.  Dovecot does.)

-- 
Please *no* private copies of mailing list or newsgroup messages.
Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Emanuel Berg]

Ian Zimmerman <itz@buug.org> writes:

> (Apologies in advance if long lines in Emanuel's
> code mess up a reader's display.)

?! :)

> It is only a challenge if you write your gnus rules
> like this, relying on regexps operators instead of
> doing it the natural Lisp way. Roughly like this:
>
>> (setq nnmail-split-methods '(("spam-ooa"
>> "^X-Spam-Flag: YES") ("spam-ooa" "^Subject:
>> lists.bofh.it mailing list memberships reminder")
>> ("spam-ooa" "^Subject: Happy Birthday From
>> Facebook")

What about this line:

    ("zsh"          "^\\(Cc\\|\\(Resent-\\)?To\\):.*zsh-\\(announce\\|workers\\|users\\)@zsh\.org.*")

The regexps are called for and this will be very
complicated to translate to any other syntax,
regardless if that other syntax supports regexps
or not.

(By the way, why don't the OP publish all or a couple
of his Gnus splitting rules so we can reason about the
real thing?)

> I believe this style would be easy to translate.
>
> (Btw., you can match regexps with Sieve too, at
> least with a decent implementation which includes
> the requisite plugin. Dovecot does.)

Help that is easy to offer should be offered the OP.

But: even if the help is easy to offer, which it
isn't, and even if the help is offered, which hasn't
happened yet, it is still better to write the SIEVE
point blank. It might not be the Lisp way (whatever
that is) but it is the intelligent and enjoyable way
that will use a reasonable amount of time to solve
a problem the way it was intended to be solved.
Don't you think?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2015-09-21 01:55 +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> But: even if the help is easy to offer, which it isn't, and even if
> the help is offered, which hasn't happened yet, it is still better to
> write the SIEVE point blank. It might not be the Lisp way (whatever
> that is) but it is the intelligent and enjoyable way that will use a
> reasonable amount of time to solve a problem the way it was intended
> to be solved.  Don't you think?

Maybe.  Depends how much effort one's willing to put into handling her
mail, relative to other things, and how much of that to do now, relative
to later.  To take the extreme case, what if the OP wants to keep the
rules in both formats and keep them in sync?  You don't recommend always
editing both sides, do you?

If OP just wants to switch from Gnus to some Sieve processor for good,
and has only a moderate number of rules, I agree with you.

-- 
Please *no* private copies of mailing list or newsgroup messages.
Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Emanuel Berg]

Ian Zimmerman <itz@buug.org> writes:

> Maybe. Depends how much effort one's willing to put
> into handling her mail, relative to other things,
> and how much of that to do now, relative to later.
> To take the extreme case, what if the OP wants to
> keep the rules in both formats and keep them in
> sync? You don't recommend always editing both sides,
> do you?

Well, no, but in that scenario I don't recommend
anything except to pick one and go with it.

> If OP just wants to switch from Gnus to some Sieve
> processor for good, and has only a moderate number of
> rules, I agree with you.

"Get ready for the big surprise.
 You are not you.
 You are me."

"No shit."

Total Recall (1990)

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Emanuel Berg]

Ian Zimmerman <itz@buug.org> writes:

>> But: even if the help is easy to offer, which it
>> isn't, and even if the help is offered, which
>> hasn't happened yet, it is still better to write
>> the SIEVE point blank. It might not be the Lisp way
>> (whatever that is) but it is the intelligent and
>> enjoyable way that will use a reasonable amount of
>> time to solve a problem the way it was intended to
>> be solved. Don't you think?
>
> Maybe. Depends how much effort one's willing to put
> into handling her mail, relative to other things, and
> how much of that to do now, relative to later. To take
> the extreme case, what if the OP wants to keep the
> rules in both formats and keep them in sync?

By the way, this is the second thread I'm in tonight
where "the OP" seems to be the one the least
interested in the discussion and our efforts to help!
This reminds me of always scaring away girls back in
elementary school. Maybe we should change our style?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Esben Stien]

On 21.09.2015 01:55, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> (By the way, why don't the OP publish all or a couple
> of his Gnus splitting rules so we can reason about the
> real thing?)

Fortunately, my requirements are not that hard;)

I basically have a list of 400 entries, like this:

     ("gnuprinting-general" 
"^\\(Mailing-List:\\|X-Mailing-List:\\|List-Id:\\).*printing-user-general.lists.freestandards.org*")
     ("gnuprinting-hp" 
"^\\(Mailing-List:\\|X-Mailing-List:\\|List-Id:\\).*hp-list.linuxprinting.org*")
     ("gnuprinting-xerox" 
"^\\(Mailing-List:\\|X-Mailing-List:\\|List-Id:\\).*xerox-list.linuxprinting.org*")
     ("gnuprinting-oce" 
"^\\(Mailing-List:\\|X-Mailing-List:\\|List-Id:\\).*oce-list.linuxprinting.org*")
     ("gnuprinting-canon" 
"^\\(Mailing-List:\\|X-Mailing-List:\\|List-Id:\\).*printing-user-canon.lists.freestandards.org*")
     ("linux-kernel" 
"^\\(Mailing-List:\\|X-Mailing-List:\\|List-Id:\\).*linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org*")
     ("festival" 
"^\\(Mailing-List:\\|Sender:\\|List-Id:\\).*festival-talk@metronomicon.com*")
     ("festvox-talk" 
"^\\(Mailing-List:\\|Sender:\\|List-Id:\\).*festvox-talk@metronomicon.com*")
     ("www-math" 
"^\\(Mailing-List:\\|X-Mailing-List:\\|List-Id:\\).*www-math.w3.org*")
     ("blug" 
"^\\(Mailing-List:\\|X-Mailing-List:\\|List-Id:\\).*blug.blug.linux.no*")
     ("full-disclosure" 
"^\\(Mailing-List:\\|List-Id:\\).*full-disclosure.lists.grok.org.uk*")
     ("honeypot" 
"^\\(Mailing-List:\\|X-Mailing-List:\\|List-Id:\\).*honeypots.list-id.securityfocus.com*")
     ("vulnwatch" 
"^\\(Mailing-List:\\|X-Mailing-List:\\|List-Id:\\).*vulnwatch-help@vulnwatch.org*")


..which could easily be parsed to [name][list-id]

Most mailing lists use the List-Id header, so all my lines are exactly 
like this.

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Emanuel Berg]

Esben Stien <b0ef@esben-stien.name> writes:

>> (By the way, why don't the OP publish all or
>> a couple of his Gnus splitting rules so we can
>> reason about the real thing?)
>
> Fortunately, my requirements are not that hard;)
>
> I basically have a list of 400 entries, like this:
>
> [...] Mailing-List [...]
>
> Most mailing lists use the List-Id header, so all my
> lines are exactly like this.

For mailing lists, it is much better to use Gmane
which does exactly what you want but without getting
all the mail everyday and sorting and storing it, and
where everything is automatized and built (not tweaked)
for this exact purpose. It is a huge improvement
switching from Gnus mailing list splitting into
newsgroups if you only have say 20 or so mailing
lists, and if you have 400...?!

Here are a couple of dumps of Gnus with Gmane:

    http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/gmane/

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Esben Stien]

On 22.09.2015 02:00, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> For mailing lists, it is much better to use Gmane

I don't think this new host allows to enter nntp into it. I'm using 
Polaris
as the host now. Of course, I could enter all of them directly into each
and every client I use, but that's gonna take forever.

You know if Polaris allows this?

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Emanuel Berg]

Esben Stien <b0ef@esben-stien.name> writes:

>> For mailing lists, it is much better to use Gmane
>
> I don't think this new host allows to enter nntp
> into it. I'm using Polaris as the host now. [...]
> You know if Polaris allows this?

If you by "Polaris" mean the Solaris port for the
PowerPC, then I don't see why the OS should care one
"bit" if you do NNTP or not?

Even so, Gmane is a gateway from mails to news.
I don't know where the transformation takes place, but
it is possible it would still work even if Polaris
disallows NNTP for whatever bizarre reason.

You can read an introduction to what Gmane is/does
here:

    http://gmane.org/about.php

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2015-09-22 02:00 +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> For mailing lists, it is much better to use Gmane which does exactly
> what you want but without getting all the mail everyday and sorting
> and storing it, and where everything is automatized and built (not
> tweaked) for this exact purpose. It is a huge improvement switching
> from Gnus mailing list splitting into newsgroups if you only have say
> 20 or so mailing lists, and if you have 400...?!

Reading mailing lists with netnews mechanisms has its advantages, but
also disadvantages.

The main disadvantage for me is that news articles are read only.  This
means I cannot locally correct misbehaviour such as broken threads
(which happens all the time in _this_ list, "thanks" to Mailman and its
broken news gateway).

Another disadvantage, and I admit it's a more theoretical one, is that
every remote service will go away someday.  In the case of gmane it will
not be only the current article feed, but also the archives.  If you
rely on it exclusively, all the information in historical articles will
be gone.

-- 
Please *no* private copies of mailing list or newsgroup messages.
Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Emanuel Berg]

Ian Zimmerman <itz@buug.org> writes:

> The main disadvantage for me is that news articles
> are read only. This means I cannot locally correct
> misbehaviour such as broken threads (which happens
> all the time in _this_ list, "thanks" to Mailman and
> its broken news gateway).
>
> Another disadvantage, and I admit it's a more
> theoretical one, is that every remote service will
> go away someday. In the case of gmane it will not be
> only the current article feed, but also the
> archives. If you rely on it exclusively, all the
> information in historical articles will be gone.

So one disadvantage is theoretical. And the
other: hysterical?

There are no disadvantages using Gmane. The archives
you keep will someday be gone just as any other.
Don't worry about it. The worst thing one can do with
life is to waste it being neurotic about things that
have no meaning.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[tomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 03:52:10AM +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Ian Zimmerman <itz@buug.org> writes:
> 
> > The main disadvantage for me is that news articles
> > are read only. This means I cannot locally correct
> > misbehaviour such as broken threads (which happens
> > all the time in _this_ list, "thanks" to Mailman and
> > its broken news gateway).
> >
> > Another disadvantage, and I admit it's a more
> > theoretical one, is that every remote service will
> > go away someday. In the case of gmane it will not be
> > only the current article feed, but also the
> > archives. If you rely on it exclusively, all the
> > information in historical articles will be gone.
> 
> So one disadvantage is theoretical. And the
> other: hysterical?

I was going to do a harsh rebuff. After all, to me it's
pretty understandable that someone wishes to take their
archiving decisions themselves. Calling that "hysterical"
is... borderline insult.

OTOH, and somewhat independently, Gmane seems to belong
to the Good Folks(TM).

regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYCZv0ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaIdACeIg8AAAj5CYkIe7oMxxXNP4cb
9vEAn15FjM6s536c0QCQLIQ79N6swfRQ
=ZUj7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Emanuel Berg]

<tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:

> I was going to do a harsh rebuff. After all, to me
> it's pretty understandable that someone wishes to
> take their archiving decisions themselves.
> Calling that "hysterical" is... borderline insult.
>
> OTOH, and somewhat independently, Gmane seems to
> belong to the Good Folks(TM).

Gmane and Gnus do belong to the good folks and it is
good software. This means, if you want to be
hysteric and neurotic in this almost infinitely small
time in the sun we have all been given, do it, but if
you bring it to technology which is great and say the
problem is *there*, then I'm going to call it as
I see it.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[tomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 02:28:08AM +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> <tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:
> 
> > I was going to do a harsh rebuff [...]

> Gmane and Gnus do belong to the good folks and it is
> good software. This means, if you want to be
> hysteric and neurotic [...]

And I'd strongly advise you to keep "Hysteric" and "Neurotic"
for something more than just "People I Don't Agree With" (TM).

Makes life easier, believe me ;-)

- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYE9MIACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaNowCdH3Nyb5oKwp1ky81+dZb9++gk
fxMAn2hfphySc7JjB9YsMzXDhRFVMPl0
=WQai
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: gnus Split Rules to SIEVE

[Emanuel Berg]

<tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:

> And I'd strongly advise you to keep "Hysteric" and
> "Neurotic" for something more than just "People
> I Don't Agree With" (TM).
>
> Makes life easier, believe me ;-)

Life was never easy to me so I have zero-tolerance
visavis made-up "problems".

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573