-;;; `spam-ham-marks-form' gets overridden below, marks `R' and `r' for default
-;;; read or explicit delete, marks `X' and 'K' for automatic or explicit
-;;; kills, as well as mark `Y' for low scores, are all considered to be
-;;; associated with articles which are not spam. This assumption might be
-;;; false, in particular if you use kill files or score files as means for
-;;; detecting genuine spam, you should then adjust `spam-ham-marks-form'. When
-;;; you leave a group, all _unsaved_ articles bearing any the above marks are
-;;; sent to Bogofilter which will study these as not-spam samples. If you
-;;; explicit kill a lot, you might sometimes end up with articles marked `K'
-;;; which you never saw, and which might accidentally contain spam. Best is
-;;; to make sure that real spam is marked with `H', and nothing else.
-
-;;; All other marks do not contribute to Bogofilter pre-conditioning. In
-;;; particular, ticked, dormant or souped articles are likely to contribute
-;;; later, when they will get deleted for real, so there is no need to use
-;;; them prematurely. Explicitly expired articles do not contribute, command
-;;; `E' is a way to get rid of an article without Bogofilter ever seeing it.
-
-;;; In a word, with a minimum of care for associating the `H' mark for spam
-;;; articles only, Bogofilter training all gets fairly automatic. You should
-;;; do this until you get a few hundreds of articles in each category, spam
-;;; or not. The shell command `head -1 ~/.bogofilter/*' shows both article
-;;; counts. The command `S S' in summary mode, either for debugging or for
-;;; curiosity, triggers Bogofilter into displaying in another buffer the
-;;; "spamicity" score of the current article (between 0.0 and 1.0), together
-;;; with the article words which most significantly contribute to the score.
-
-;;; The real way for using Bogofilter, however, is to have some use tool like
-;;; `procmail' for invoking it on message reception, then adding some
-;;; recognisable header in case of detected spam. Gnus splitting rules might
-;;; later trip on these added headers and react by sorting such articles into
-;;; specific junk folders as per `spam-junk-mailgroups'. Here is a possible
-;;; `.procmailrc' contents (still untested -- please tell me how it goes):
+;;; `spam-ham-marks-form' gets overridden below, marks `R' and `r' for
+;;; default read or explicit delete, marks `X' and 'K' for automatic
+;;; or explicit kills, as well as mark `Y' for low scores, are all
+;;; considered to be associated with articles which are not spam.
+;;; This assumption might be false, in particular if you use kill
+;;; files or score files as means for detecting genuine spam, you
+;;; should then adjust `spam-ham-marks-form'. When you leave a group,
+;;; all _unsaved_ articles bearing any the above marks are sent to
+;;; Bogofilter which will study these as not-spam samples. If you
+;;; explicit kill a lot, you might sometimes end up with articles
+;;; marked `K' which you never saw, and which might accidentally
+;;; contain spam. Best is to make sure that real spam is marked with
+;;; `H', and nothing else.
+
+;;; All other marks do not contribute to Bogofilter pre-conditioning.
+;;; In particular, ticked, dormant or souped articles are likely to
+;;; contribute later, when they will get deleted for real, so there is
+;;; no need to use them prematurely. Explicitly expired articles do
+;;; not contribute, command `E' is a way to get rid of an article
+;;; without Bogofilter ever seeing it.
+
+;;; In a word, with a minimum of care for associating the `H' mark for
+;;; spam articles only, Bogofilter training all gets fairly automatic.
+;;; You should do this until you get a few hundreds of articles in
+;;; each category, spam or not. The shell command `head -1
+;;; ~/.bogofilter/*' shows both article counts. The command `S S' in
+;;; summary mode, either for debugging or for curiosity, triggers
+;;; Bogofilter into displaying in another buffer the "spamicity" score
+;;; of the current article (between 0.0 and 1.0), together with the
+;;; article words which most significantly contribute to the score.
+
+;;; The real way for using Bogofilter, however, is to have some use
+;;; tool like `procmail' for invoking it on message reception, then
+;;; adding some recognisable header in case of detected spam. Gnus
+;;; splitting rules might later trip on these added headers and react
+;;; by sorting such articles into specific junk folders as per
+;;; `spam-junk-mailgroups'. Here is a possible `.procmailrc' contents
+;;; (still untested -- please tell me how it goes):