[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: Why, oh why? -or- scoring
From:       Marc Mutz <Marc.Mutz () uni-bielefeld ! de>
Date:       2001-06-01 18:03:03
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 01 June 2001 15:17, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> On Friday 01 June 2001 14:13, Marc Mutz wrote:
<snip>
> > Why can't I just use something like
> > Q> msgScre = kernel->scoringManager()->score(myMsg);
>
> Because scoring can only be done within a folder, as rules are on a
> per-folder basis.
<snip>

You can extract the folder the message is in with KMMessage::parent().
Also, I see in the configuration dialog for scoring, that there are 
rules that apply to all "groups" (see, you didn't even change 
"group"->"folder").

> > To the one that implemented scoring in KMail (and I somehow doubt
> > that this is Espen Sand, as stated in kmscoring.h...):
>
> That's me.

Funny. Never saw a guy with two different names before...

> > If you care for filtering based on "score" or a "set score", "add
> > score" etc. filter action, you have two options:
>
> I'm more or less interested in score-based filtering, but not on a
> "set score" action as it simply doesn't make any sense. You'd be
> duplicating what scoring is doing in the first place (e.g. setting a
> score).

Hm, maybe that's my intention? Maybe I'm thinking that calculating 
scores can be equally well and better done using KMails filters?

> > 2.) make it possible to score a message
> > a. with no parent folder
>
> As I said, that doesn't make sense (rules are on a per-folder basis).

It would make sense if you integrated this stuff better into KMail. The 
"different scores for different groups" thing is fine for a newsreader, 
yet for a mail client, it's at most secondary. Here's why:

In mail clients, the "groups" are not fixed by someone outside. It's 
the user himself (or herself) that defines (via filter rules), what 
gets to be moved into which "group". It follows that the user has 
defined a set of rules that applies to all messages in any given 
folder, except inbox. Thus, he/she can very well use these same options 
to define scoring rules.

Now you will say: "But that's duplicated efford. Why should I add the 
same rules for scoring _and_ filtering?" And you are _right_. That's 
the precise reason why I want scoring to be done by filters.

BTW: The reason a "scoring" search rule must be able to work with 
parentless messages is because the messages are taken from their 
folders before applying filters to them.

> > b. without big overhead
>
> Michael wouldn't have let the patch in otherwise :-)

The overhead currently stems from the fact that - for search rules - 
you currently would have to create a scoringmanager and a scorable 
article for every message you are given.

> It seems to me you're totally misunderstanding what scoring is about
> and how it works.
>

As I understand it, scoring is a method to calculate an "importance 
measure" on the space of messages. It works just like filtering.

> The only feature I'd like to have actually is the ability to flag
> messages which have a score higher than some value. But this will
> have to wait for the "extra listview columns" issue to be settled.
<snip>

Trivial as soon as there's a "score" search rule.

Marc

-- 
Marc Mutz <Marc@Mutz.com>
http://marc.mutz.com/
http://www.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de/~mmutz/
http://EncryptionHOWTO.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Kmail Developers mailing list
Kmail@master.kde.org
http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]