Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] filtering support for inc

[Jon Steinhart]

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