On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:23:51PM +0100, Christian Ordig wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:00:36AM -0500, David T-G wrote: > > I'm in the same boat, in fact :-) What we really need is for active > > scorers to reply! > ok. here I is one ... > > > > If you tried to implement all of that, with those incremental tests, in > > procmail your rules would be ugly *and* you'd have a lot of duplication > > (I imagine the same sorts of problems would apply to any filter, but I > > dunno from maildrop or the others recently mentioned -- yet). > That's the point. Imagine someone you don't really care about. <snipped -- regretfully> Ok, that is a good explanation. It still does sound a little complex (since you have been the only "active" scorer to reply so far, it does not seem widely used). Interesting though, I have a *prime* candidate for a person on a particular list (I won't name list or person, but it's no-one on this list .. unless he lurks..) whose messages I usually crudely filter into a mailbox called "bollocks". Unfortunately he sometimes appears cc'ed or to'ed or whatever on a subject I want to hear about. Sounds like scoring might help.
Mmm. food for thought. -- Regards Cliff
