From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/6587 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: jbw@cs.bu.edu (Joe Wells) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: various nnml questions, many about cross-posted mail messages Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 23:39:21 -0400 Message-ID: <199606100339.XAA14837@csb.bu.edu> References: <199606072316.TAA19343@csb.bu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035147022 4124 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:50:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:50:22 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA11693 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 21:04:57 -0700 Original-Received: from cs.bu.edu (root@CS.BU.EDU [128.197.13.2]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 05:41:48 +0200 Original-Received: from csb.bu.edu by cs.bu.edu (8.6.10/Spike-2.1) id XAA16188; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 23:39:24 -0400 Original-Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.6.10/Spike-2.1) id XAA14837; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 23:39:21 -0400 Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no In-reply-to: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of 09 Jun 1996 06:06:26 +0200 Sent-via: ding@ifi.uio.no Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6587 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6587 In article Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: jbw@cs.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes: > 1. An article is cross-posted to two mail groups: > > Xref: csb.bu.edu mail.emacs.bbdb:1 mail.to-jbw:3 > > I am in the Summary buffer for mail.emacs.bbdb on the line for this > article. I type "B DEL". The file ~/Mail/mail/emacs/bbdb/1 is > unlinked. The file ~/Mail/mail/to-jbw/3 is untouched. In particular, > it still has the old "Xref:" header, which is incorrect because the > article is no longer in mail.emacs.bbdb. > > Questions: > > A: Is this fixed? No, but it isn't a bug. :-) Hmm. All it leaves is a dangling pointer, which is okay since newsreaders have to be prepared to handle this. So I agree here. However, I think it would be better if Gnus fixed the Xref header in the other copies of the message. > B: Is there a command that will remove the article from all of the > mail groups to which it is cross-posted? Hm. Nope, but it's trivial to add. I've now added it to the Red Gnus todo list. > 3. An article is cross-posted to two mail groups: > > Xref: csb.bu.edu mail.emacs.bbdb:2 mail.list.info-bbdb:1 > > I am in the Summary buffer for mail.emacs.bbdb on the line for this > article. I type "B m" and specify the group "mail.misc". The file > ~/Mail/mail/emacs/bbdb/2 is unlinked. The file ~/Mail/list/info-bbdb/1 > is untouched. In particular, it still has the old "Xref:" header, > which is incorrect because the other copy for the article is no longer > in mail.emacs.bbdb, but is instead in mail.misc. Well, it's not incorrect -- it just points to a message that no longer exists. In this case, I disagree with you. What does it mean when a user types "B m" in a mail group? It means they wish to change the result of their nnmail-split-methods method. Thus, if a message was put in mail groups A, B, and C by nnmail-split-methods and the user types "B m D RET" in group B, then the result should be as though nnmail-split methods put the message in groups A, D, and C instead. I also believe that a newsreader, to the greatest extent practically possible, should treat a message cross posted to several groups as a single entity. When I receive a message that gets put in groups A, B, and C, I do not want it to make a difference in which group I deal with the message first. If, while in group B, I read the message, tick it, and reply to it, I expect it to be annotated with "!A". If a week later I am viewing the same message in group C, I want to see the same annotation there too. In order for a newsreader to meet the goals I mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is necessary for that newsreader to do as much as it can to preserve the semantic integrity of the Xref links. > The new file in > mail.misc has the following wrong "Xref:" header: > > Xref: csb.bu.edu mail.misc:48 > > This is wrong because the message is cross-posted to > "mail.list.info-bbdb". > > Questions: > > A: Is this fixed? > B: Is there a command that will take an article which is cross-posted > to groups A and B and make it cross-posted to A, B, and C? The "B > c" command does not seem to preserve cross-posting links. Should it? I don't know, really. Again, changing the behavior is easy enough, but I'm not sure it's the right thing to do... See above. > 5. An article is cross-posted to multiple mail groups: > > Xref: csb.bu.edu mail.emacs.bbdb:4 mail.emacs.mail-extr:1 mail.to-jbw:22 > > I am in the Summary buffer for mail.emacs.bbdb on the line for this > article. I type "!" to tick the article. I exit this summary and > enter the Summary buffer for mail.emacs.mail-extr. There is no tick > mark for this article in the group mail.emacs.mail-extr. > > Question: > > * Is there a variable setting so that any mark change (adding or > removing a mark) I apply to a message in one group is immediately > applied to the same message in any other groups to which it is > cross-posted? Right now only the "R" marks seem to be propagated. This is a feature. Propagating marks between groups seems rather absurd to me. I can't see what good that would do. See above. The only thing the Xref utility is there for is to avoid having to read any article more than once, and that's all. First, I disagree about the usefulness of Xref. Second, the lack of mark propagation in Gnus prevents achieving the goal of not reading articles more than once. Suppose, while in group A, I read an article which was cross posted to group B and then I tick the article. Then I go to group B. I will see the same article and it will be unmarked (not marked as read). Unless I am very careful, I will end up reading it again. > 2. In the Summary buffer, the "B m" command asks for a target group. I > type in a name. It complains that the group doesn't exist. (The group > does indeed not exist yet. I don't care. I want the message in that > group.) > > Question: > > * Is there a command that will just create the group instead of > failing? No, the group has to exist before moving. I could remove the restriction; I just thought that requiring a match would lead to fewer problems with typos and such. Whadda y'all say? Should Gnus just create the group when the user moves/copies an article to the group? For me, typos are not a problem because I usually use completion to verify that what I am typing is correct. Even when I type all of the letters of a string by hand, I still use TAB or ? to check that it is right. So if I type "mail.foo.bar", I really mean "mail.foo.bar". For me, it can not possibly be a typo. Other people might not share this style. > 4. Question: How do people keep track of whether they have edited a > message or forwarded it? They have rilly good memories? I asked this question because this is one of the features of VM which I like quite a bit. -- Joe Wells