From: yamaoka Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:30:57 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Synch with Oort Gnus (gnus-ja.texi hasn't been translated yet). X-Git-Tag: t-gnus-6_15_10-00-quimby~85 X-Git-Url: http://git.chise.org/gitweb/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=49e7dfad28137bf1e7152640590d9a073331e60a;p=elisp%2Fgnus.git- Synch with Oort Gnus (gnus-ja.texi hasn't been translated yet). --- diff --git a/lisp/ChangeLog b/lisp/ChangeLog index ff5353a..23aa57d 100644 --- a/lisp/ChangeLog +++ b/lisp/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +2002-11-21 Teodor Zlatanov + + * spam.el: + added patch from Andreas Fuchs to prevent apply errors + + * spam.el: added `M s t' and `M s x' key mappings + 2002-11-20 Simon Josefsson * gnus-sum.el (gnus-summary-morse-message): Narrow to body. diff --git a/lisp/spam.el b/lisp/spam.el index 639571e..bb399c4 100644 --- a/lisp/spam.el +++ b/lisp/spam.el @@ -131,6 +131,8 @@ Such articles will be transmitted to `bogofilter -s' on group exit.") (gnus-define-keys gnus-summary-mode-map "St" spam-bogofilter-score "Sx" gnus-summary-mark-as-spam + "Mst" spam-bogofilter-score + "Msx" gnus-summary-mark-as-spam "\M-d" gnus-summary-mark-as-spam) ;;; How to highlight a spam summary line. @@ -195,8 +197,8 @@ See the Info node `(gnus)Fancy Mail Splitting' for more details." decision) (while (and list-of-checks (not decision)) (let ((pair (pop list-of-checks))) - (when (eval (car pair)) - (setq decision (apply (cdr pair)))))) + (when (symbol-value (car pair)) + (setq decision (funcall (cdr pair)))))) (if (eq decision t) nil decision))) @@ -374,7 +376,7 @@ The regular expression is matched against the address.") ;;; make install ;;; ;;; Here as well, you need to become super-user for the last step. Now, -;;; initialises your word lists by doing, under your own identity: +;;; initialize your word lists by doing, under your own identity: ;;; ;;; mkdir ~/.bogofilter ;;; touch ~/.bogofilter/badlist diff --git a/texi/ChangeLog b/texi/ChangeLog index 1b6f32e..170a2be 100644 --- a/texi/ChangeLog +++ b/texi/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,31 @@ +2002-11-21 Teodor Zlatanov + + * gnus.texi: + added new keyboard commands + + * gnus.texi: added extended section on spam + +2002-11-18 jas + + * gnus.texi: Fix IMAP expiring typos. + +2002-11-18 kaig + + * gnus.texi: *** empty log message *** + +2002-11-18 jas + + * gnus.texi: More morse. + + * gnus.texi (Article Washing): Add morse. + +2002-11-17 jas + + * gnus.texi: Fix typo. + + * gnus.texi (Expiring in IMAP): Add. + (Group Parameters): Add reference. + 2002-11-16 Kai Gro,A_(Bjohann * gnus.texi (Expiring Mail): Give summary on difference between diff --git a/texi/gnus-ja.texi b/texi/gnus-ja.texi index 204569e..4c345fc 100644 --- a/texi/gnus-ja.texi +++ b/texi/gnus-ja.texi @@ -976,9 +976,12 @@ Picons Thwarting Email Spam +* The problem of spam:: $BGX7J!"$=$7$F2r7h(B * Anti-Spam Basics:: $B$?$/$5$s$N(B spam $B$r8:$i$94JC1$JJ}K!(B * SpamAssassin:: Spam $BBP:v%D!<%k$N;H$$J}(B * Hashcash:: CPU $B;~4V$rHq$d$7$F(B spam $BB`<#$9$k(B +* Filtering Spam Using spam.el:: +* Filtering Spam Using Statistics (spam-stat.el):: Appendices @@ -20545,14 +20548,85 @@ Gnus $B$O!"%9%3%"IU$1!"%9%l%C%I$N7A@.!"%9%l%C%IHf3S$J$I$r9T$&$H$-$K!"(B $B9p(B (``$B:G?7(B! $B4q@W$NA}LS%H%K%C%/!"$U$5$U$5$G$D$d$D$d$NH1$r!"$"$J$?$N$D$^@h(B $B$^$G(B!'') $B$H!"2y$$2~$a?@$r?.$8$h!"$H$$$&0l$D$N%a!<%k$,$"$k$@$1$J$N$G$9!#(B -$B$3$l$OITL{2w$G$9!#(B +$B$3$l$OITL{2w$G$9!#$"$J$?$,$=$l$K4X$7$F$G$-$k$3$H$,$"$j$^$9!#(B @menu +* The problem of spam:: $BGX7J!"$=$7$F2r7h(B * Anti-Spam Basics:: $B$?$/$5$s$N(B spam $B$r8:$i$94JC1$JJ}K!(B * SpamAssassin:: Spam $BBP:v%D!<%k$N;H$$J}(B * Hashcash:: CPU $B;~4V$rHq$d$7$F(B spam $BB`<#$9$k(B +* Filtering Spam Using spam.el:: +* Filtering Spam Using Statistics (spam-stat.el):: @end menu +@node The problem of spam +@subsection The problem of spam +@cindex email spam +@cindex spam filtering approaches +@cindex filtering approaches, spam +@cindex UCE +@cindex unsolicited commercial email + +First, some background on spam. + +If you have access to e-mail, you are familiar with spam (technically +termed @acronym{UCE}, Unsolicited Commercial E-mail). Simply put, it exists +because e-mail delivery is very cheap compared to paper mail, so only +a very small percentage of people need to respond to an UCE to make it +worthwhile to the advertiser. Ironically, one of the most common +spams is the one offering a database of e-mail addresses for further +spamming. Senders of spam are usually called @emph{spammers}, but terms like +@emph{vermin}, @emph{scum}, and @emph{morons} are in common use as well. + +Spam comes from a wide variety of sources. It is simply impossible to +dispose of all spam without discarding useful messages. A good +example is the TMDA system, which requires senders +unknown to you to confirm themselves as legitimate senders before +their e-mail can reach you. Without getting into the technical side +of TMDA, a downside is clearly that e-mail from legitimate sources may +be discarded if those sources can't or won't confirm themselves +through the TMDA system. Another problem with TMDA is that it +requires its users to have a basic understanding of e-mail delivery +and processing. + +The simplest approach to filtering spam is filtering. If you get 200 +spam messages per day from @email{random-address@@vmadmin.com}, you +block @samp{vmadmin.com}. If you get 200 messages about +@samp{VIAGRA}, you discard all messages with @samp{VIAGRA} in the +message. This, unfortunately, is a great way to discard legitimate +e-mail. For instance, the very informative and useful RISKS digest +has been blocked by overzealous mail filters because it +@strong{contained} words that were common in spam messages. +Nevertheless, in isolated cases, with great care, direct filtering of +mail can be useful. + +Another approach to filtering e-mail is the distributed spam +processing, for instance DCC implements such a system. In essence, +@code{N} systems around the world agree that a machine @samp{X} in +China, Ghana, or California is sending out spam e-mail, and these +@code{N} systems enter @samp{X} or the spam e-mail from @samp{X} into +a database. The criteria for spam detection vary - it may be the +number of messages sent, the content of the messages, and so on. When +a user of the distributed processing system wants to find out if a +message is spam, he consults one of those @code{N} systems. + +Distributed spam processing works very well against spammers that send +a large number of messages at once, but it requires the user to set up +fairly complicated checks. There are commercial and free distributed +spam processing systems. Distributed spam processing has its risks as +well. For instance legitimate e-mail senders have been accused of +sending spam, and their web sites have been shut down for some time +because of the incident. + +The statistical approach to spam filtering is also popular. It is +based on a statistical analysis of previous spam messages. Usually +the analysis is a simple word frequency count, with perhaps pairs or +words or 3-word combinations thrown into the mix. Statistical +analysis of spam works very well in most of the cases, but it can +classify legitimate e-mail as spam in some cases. It takes time to +run the analysis, the full message must be analyzed, and the user has +to store the database of spam analyses. + @node Anti-Spam Basics @subsection Spam $BB`<#$N4pAC(B @cindex email spam @@ -20773,6 +20847,524 @@ Spam $B$H@o$&$?$a$N?7$7$$5;K!$O!"%a%C%;!<%8$rAw?.$9$k:]$K$$$/$P$/$+$NIiC4(B $B