I cannot sponsor you so just a few comments:

The version in %changelog should be listed as: 7.19-1
You may want to create the init file as a separate source.

Valid points.

If you could update the package to reflect the new 'emacs-common-$name' I can
see about doing a review. 

(removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR as you are now sponsored). 

Hi Kevin,

The emacs-common-$name scheme applies only when a package is meant for multiple
emacs flavours - the emacs-vm package here targets only GNU Emacs, since VM is
the mailer shipped with XEmacs, and so a package is not required.

Cleanups to spec file and updated SRPM:

http://physics.open.ac.uk/~ju83/emacs-vm.spec
http://physics.open.ac.uk/~ju83/emacs-vm-7.19-2.src.rpm

It's a pretty straightforward package, so I don't think there's too much out of
whack with it (famous last words...).

Sorry, I meant to review this quite a while back... 

OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
7866f6243e398d76ae32356a4af76fa3  vm-7.19.tar.gz
7866f6243e398d76ae32356a4af76fa3  vm-7.19.tar.gz.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
n/a - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
n/a - Spec handles locales/find_lang
n/a - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
n/a - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .so files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
n/a - .la files are removed.
n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.

Issues:

1. Should the Requires for the el subpackage be:
'Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}' instead of just
'Requires: %{name} = %{version}'
That could cause some confusion down the road.

2. You have the Group as 'Applications/Editors'
Since this is a mail reader perhaps one of:

Applications/Communications
Applications/Internet
Applications/Productivity

would be more approprate?

3. One (ignoreable) rpmlint warning:

W: emacs-vm-el no-documentation

As none of those are blockers, this package is APPROVED.
You may want to look at items 1 and 2 as you are importing.

Hi Kevin, Thanks for taking the time to review, much appreciated.

I think you're probably right - Applications/Communications may be the
appropriate group. I'll ponder on that. And regarding point one - yes
version-release would be better. Will make those changes.

mew and wl have been Applications/Internet FWIW.

(My initial reaction on seeing this discussion was that "Application/*" should
be for desktop applications.... but doesn't seem to have been the case always.:)

Package imported.

Group set as Applications/Internet.
Added a Requires:%{version}-%{release} to the subpackage.

Closing NEXTRELEASE.

Many thanks again.