Re: mozilla

["Ted Zlatanov" <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On  7 Feb 2006, oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:

>>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>
> Ted> On  6 Feb 2006, oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Reiner" == Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:
>
> Ted> That's part of the IMAP protocol I believe.  It would be nice,
> I see
>
> Ted> however, if nnimap.el could transform those labels into header
> Ted> entries like the ones Reiner showed.  That's the
> Ted> quick-and-dirty solution.
>
> Well I wrote a quick and very dirty solution by adding a label to
> nnmail or nnfolder articles, using  gnus-summary-edit-article. This
> function even allows to edit imap articles (using the second argument)
>
> *If ARG is 2, edit the raw articles even in read-only groups.*
>
> However the saving is not a real saving so this does not help (whether
> it is a clever idea to raw edit mime articles is another question).

I think this is not as good as backend support.  With IMAP, for
example, you can set the labels (flags) for a whole range of messages
at once quickly; with any editing solution it's a lot slower, plus
it's only for Gnus.

> Do you think it is easy to implement a solution for the nnimap
> backend?  

I don't know how much is implemented in imap.el already.  If there is
no support for flags yet, it's a lot of work.

> Meanwhile another solution occurred to me, after having read the
> discussion in the links Rainer mentioned. I saw that some people have
> a solution the other way around.  Instead of putting labels in the
> group, they put labels in there corresponding planner entries. I just
> remembered I have a similar solution for the todo-mode.el pkg written
> by Oliver Seidel. My function adds the subject, message-ID and group
> name as an todo entry in the category email. May be I should enhance
> that for other categories, like NeedReply, Important etc.

I remember this.  We could also use the gnus-registry to associate
message-ID with any custom data, including labels.  I just think that
any Gnus-only solution is worse than a generic solution.

> Btw Ted do you recall our discussion about a generalizing
> gnus-summary-limit function to include BBDB or NO BBDB entries. Your
> solution worked for all net address in a BBDB entry save the first
> one, mine vice verse, however you claimed that your function could do
> both, but you had to look into it. Did you do that?

No, sorry.  I must have dropped the ball on that one.  Can you please
send me the latest versions of your and my code?

Thanks
Ted