Re: bogofilter behavior

[Harry Putnam]

Reiner Steib <4.uce.03.r.s@nurfuerspam.de> writes:

> It seems that the meaning of those have changed [2].  I hope that the
> values in `spam.el' are suitable for current bogofilter:
>
> spam-bogofilter-spam-switch "-s"
> spam-bogofilter-ham-switch "-n"
> spam-bogofilter-spam-strong-switch "-S"
> spam-bogofilter-ham-strong-switch "-N"

On the surface it would appear not...