[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc
From: |
Jon Steinhart |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:36:54 -0700 |
Ken Hornstein writes:
> >I'm curious, what is trying to be accomplished by inc filtering?
>
> I ... kind of thought it was obvious. "inc" is the point where you take
> messages from "external mail drop" and bring them into nmh. It's a logical
> point to want to do filtering. Your solution only works if you run your
> own SMTP server; that's fine for those who want to do that, but I'd hate
> to make it a requirement to do filtering.
>
> And I think you're not thinking ahead; sure, the behavior of inc NOW is
> to display every message as it comes in. But if it deleted them without
> you seeing them then that wouldn't be an issue.
>
> But as usual, Ralph came up with an elegant solution:
>
> >Sounds complex. How about giving inc(1) a [-sequence foo]... that added
> >the incorporated emails to the sequences. The user's script could then
> >cook up a unique sequence name, run inc, then pick(1) and mark(1) their
> >way through that sequence doing what they liked.
>
> I like it; keeps the toolbox approach, simple to code, and flexible.
> Were you thinking that the use of -sequence would negate also putting those
> messages on the unseen sequence? Any other thoughts?
>
> --Ken
If you reread my posting you'll see that I wasn't suggesting that anybody
do what I'm doing. I was documenting my specific use case and my
implementation.
Part of the reason that I did so is that unwritten things are usually not
"obvious".
I was presenting my use case and asking for others.
And I believe that I was thinking ahead. Please reread my posting which
included:
> I could do this by filtering at inc time, but then I'd see all of the spam
> going by. That wouldn't work for me since I get at least 100x as much spam
> as legitimate email. I suppose that there a filtering mechanism could have
> a "don't show stuff being sent to this folder" setting and then it would
> work for me and be a better solution than the milter.
Jon
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc, Ken Hornstein, 2017/07/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc, Jon Steinhart, 2017/07/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc, Ken Hornstein, 2017/07/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc, Jon Steinhart, 2017/07/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc, Paul Vixie, 2017/07/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc, Ken Hornstein, 2017/07/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc, Jon Steinhart, 2017/07/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/07/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc, Jon Steinhart, 2017/07/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc, Ken Hornstein, 2017/07/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc,
Jon Steinhart <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc, Thomas Levine, 2017/07/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc, Andy Bradford, 2017/07/20
- [Nmh-workers] Volunteer Capacity., Ralph Corderoy, 2017/07/21
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Volunteer Capacity., Ken Hornstein, 2017/07/21
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Volunteer Capacity., Bob Carragher, 2017/07/21
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Volunteer Capacity., Ralph Corderoy, 2017/07/22
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Volunteer Capacity., Bob Carragher, 2017/07/23
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Volunteer Capacity., Ken Hornstein, 2017/07/23
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Volunteer Capacity., Bob Carragher, 2017/07/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Volunteer Capacity., Ralph Corderoy, 2017/07/28