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