Re: mailreaver "--undo" ambiguity

   From: Paul Fox <[email protected]>

   ger wrote:
    > Q:
    > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Paul Fox<[email protected]> wrote:
    > > hi --
    > >
    > > the CRM...HOWTO.txt file says:
    > >
    > >     --undo     To the extent possible, undo a training with this
    > >                text (cached will be used if possible).  --undo
    > >                requires either --spam or --good as well.
    > >
    > >
    > > it's not clear to me which of --spam or --good i should include
    > > on the commandline.  should it be the way the message _was_ trained,
    > > or the way it _should_ have been trained?
    > 
    > A:
    > Better ever than never? ;-)

   thanks -- it is indeed.  :-)

Yeah.  Hmmm... semantically, it's not easy to figure out what that
really means, though.

Maybe "undo" should mean "erase this training" - which, unfortunately,
means we have to have a record of it.  But Paul is right- we _do_ have
that record; it's in whether the file is in known_good or
known_spam.

So, --undo should then back out that file (to the extent possible) and
then leave the message in the unknown directory.

Then, a --spam or --good would train it as good.

So, in the interest of making things painfully obvious, I vote
that --undo finds the file, and backs it out with info on where it
found it - and that --undo-ing a file that isn't in the reavercache is
unsupported -- and that --undo {--spam | --good} should issue a warning
and _only_ undo (since {--spam|--good} in the same command line is pretty
ambiguous to me.

Then, once --undone, you train as you want.

Sadly, I have no time right now to fix this issue (I'm doing real work
on the PCA & SVM subsystems).  If anyone wants to send me a patch to
mailreaver to do this, (and only this!)  I would be interested in
seeing it for vetting and addition to the kit.

   - Bill Yerazunis

------------------------------------------------------------------------------