http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3217
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-03-29 01:31 -------
Thanks for your reply. Your suggestion:
> init_learner()
> learn()
> rebuild_learner_caches()
> finish_learner()
would require that a cache rebuild requires some message to be
learned as a prelude to rebuilding the caches (which already
contain many learned messages). This seems to be an unnecessary
complication to a simple "rebuild" request.
I see that the docs say rebuild "should be called after the
learning process". But presumably the intention of this is that
it be called on a non-empty cache, not (I presume) that a
particular "init"/"rebuild"/"finish" sequence must necessarily
include the learning of some arbitrary message.
The desired logic to rebuild an existing cache is simply
something like:
> init_learner(...)
> rebuild_learner_caches(...)
> finish_learner(...)
So two possibilities would seem to be:
1. Let "init()" formally become "public" and be used as
a preamble to the above sequence. Might be as simple
as adjusting the comments in the source, and docs etc.
2. Let "init_learner()" itself do the relevant "init()"-like
things. Possibly using within it something like either:
$self->init(1);
or
$self->{bayes_scanner} = new Mail::SpamAssassin::Bayes($self);
Does that seem reasonable? I hope so, but let me know if and
how that is not the case.
Failing that, if we (from MailScanner: www.mailscanner.info) have
to use a "learn", is there some way of giving "learn" some sort
of null email, neither spam nor ham?
Thanks again.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
