* mail splitting to another backend @ 2003-04-17 16:59 Ted Zlatanov 2003-04-17 18:56 ` Paul Jarc 2003-04-17 19:41 ` Simon Josefsson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2003-04-17 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, we can't split to another backend, e.g. nnml from nnimap. Can that be added, if the destination is prefixed appropriately? Spooling locally, then moving the article would be acceptable but probably no easier. Thanks Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: mail splitting to another backend 2003-04-17 16:59 mail splitting to another backend Ted Zlatanov @ 2003-04-17 18:56 ` Paul Jarc 2003-04-17 19:09 ` Ted Zlatanov 2003-04-17 19:41 ` Simon Josefsson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2003-04-17 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: > Currently, we can't split to another backend, e.g. nnml from nnimap. > Can that be added, if the destination is prefixed appropriately? I think mail splitting really ought to be redone. It should be controlled by Gnus proper rather than an individual select method. (There's too much policy in backends generally.) Splitting to multiple select methods would go naturally with that. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: mail splitting to another backend 2003-04-17 18:56 ` Paul Jarc @ 2003-04-17 19:09 ` Ted Zlatanov 2003-04-17 19:53 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2003-04-17 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, prj@po.cwru.edu wrote: > I think mail splitting really ought to be redone. It should be > controlled by Gnus proper rather than an individual select method. > (There's too much policy in backends generally.) Splitting to > multiple select methods would go naturally with that. OK, so multiple splitting is not in the near future? I'm OK with that, I just want to know so I can write the registry split-with-parent function. There's only two places where splitting is done, AFAIK: nnmail and nnimap splitting (regular and fancy). Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: mail splitting to another backend 2003-04-17 19:09 ` Ted Zlatanov @ 2003-04-17 19:53 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2003-04-17 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, prj@po.cwru.edu wrote: >> I think mail splitting really ought to be redone. It should be >> controlled by Gnus proper rather than an individual select method. >> (There's too much policy in backends generally.) Splitting to >> multiple select methods would go naturally with that. > > OK, so multiple splitting is not in the near future? Well, the overhaul probably isn't. It's possible someone will do just the multiple-split part earlier. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: mail splitting to another backend 2003-04-17 16:59 mail splitting to another backend Ted Zlatanov 2003-04-17 18:56 ` Paul Jarc @ 2003-04-17 19:41 ` Simon Josefsson 2003-04-17 20:22 ` Ted Zlatanov 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Simon Josefsson @ 2003-04-17 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes: > Currently, we can't split to another backend, e.g. nnml from nnimap. You can use an IMAP mail-source and split from it into nnml. Perhaps a directory mail-source handles the other direction. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: mail splitting to another backend 2003-04-17 19:41 ` Simon Josefsson @ 2003-04-17 20:22 ` Ted Zlatanov 2003-04-17 20:31 ` Paul Jarc 2003-04-18 8:56 ` Simon Josefsson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2003-04-17 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, jas@extundo.com wrote: > You can use an IMAP mail-source and split from it into nnml. How? Using "nnml+private:mail" inside nnimap-split-fancy didn't work, for instance (it created an IMAP folder with that name). > Perhaps a directory mail-source handles the other direction. I tested directing the nnmail split to nnimap, and that failed as well (creating a directory under ~/Mail with the "nnimap+..." name). Thanks Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: mail splitting to another backend 2003-04-17 20:22 ` Ted Zlatanov @ 2003-04-17 20:31 ` Paul Jarc 2003-04-18 8:56 ` Simon Josefsson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2003-04-17 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, jas@extundo.com wrote: >> You can use an IMAP mail-source and split from it into nnml. > > How? Using "nnml+private:mail" inside nnimap-split-fancy didn't work, > for instance (it created an IMAP folder with that name). Simon isn't saying that the syntax we want already works. The mail splitting would have to be done by the nnml select method (nnml-get-new-mail t), referring to nnml groups without their prefixes, but it could use IMAP as a mail-source. >> Perhaps a directory mail-source handles the other direction. > > I tested directing the nnmail split to nnimap, and that failed as > well (creating a directory under ~/Mail with the "nnimap+..." name). For that, the nnimap select method would have to do the splitting; it would refer to nnimap groups without their prefixes. Doing it both ways in the same configuration would probably require different values for mail-sources during the two splits (possible, or not?), or carefully naming groups the same way on the two servers. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: mail splitting to another backend 2003-04-17 20:22 ` Ted Zlatanov 2003-04-17 20:31 ` Paul Jarc @ 2003-04-18 8:56 ` Simon Josefsson 2003-04-18 10:06 ` Kai Großjohann 2003-04-18 17:12 ` mail splitting to another backend Ted Zlatanov 1 sibling, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Simon Josefsson @ 2003-04-18 8:56 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, jas@extundo.com wrote: >> You can use an IMAP mail-source and split from it into nnml. > > How? Using "nnml+private:mail" inside nnimap-split-fancy didn't work, > for instance (it created an IMAP folder with that name). (setq mail-sources '(imap :server "mail.example.org" :predicate "1:*" :mailbox "INBOX.tonnml")) This would fetch all messages from INBOX.tonnml and split them using nnmail, and there you should be able to split the into nnml. >> Perhaps a directory mail-source handles the other direction. > > I tested directing the nnmail split to nnimap, and that failed as > well (creating a directory under ~/Mail with the "nnimap+..." name). I take back my idea -- nnimap cannot split mail from mail-sources, only from a IMAP mailbox. This is probably not very difficult to fix, though. Just replace the part that fetches mail from the INBOX, before it is splitted, with some code that gets mail from a mail-source. But to not interfer with normal mail-sources, I think this would mean adding a nnimap-mail-sources. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: mail splitting to another backend 2003-04-18 8:56 ` Simon Josefsson @ 2003-04-18 10:06 ` Kai Großjohann 2003-04-18 21:33 ` server parameter vs. server variable (was: mail splitting to another backend) Reiner Steib 2003-04-18 17:12 ` mail splitting to another backend Ted Zlatanov 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2003-04-18 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes: > I take back my idea -- nnimap cannot split mail from mail-sources, > only from a IMAP mailbox. This is probably not very difficult to fix, > though. Just replace the part that fetches mail from the INBOX, > before it is splitted, with some code that gets mail from a > mail-source. But to not interfer with normal mail-sources, I think > this would mean adding a nnimap-mail-sources. I think there is a mechanism already for having different sources for each server. Maybe it works by adding a server parameter? A new variable nnimap-mail-source wouldn't help those who have two nnimap servers ;-) -- file-error; Data: (Opening input file no such file or directory ~/.signature) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* server parameter vs. server variable (was: mail splitting to another backend) 2003-04-18 10:06 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2003-04-18 21:33 ` Reiner Steib 2003-04-18 23:03 ` server parameter vs. server variable Paul Jarc 2003-04-20 14:35 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Reiner Steib @ 2003-04-18 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, Apr 18 2003, Kai Großjohann wrote: > Maybe it works by adding a server parameter? Most people here use the term `server parameter' instead of `server variable' as the manual does, see (info "(gnus)Server Variables"). The only match on `server parameter' is in the new nnmaildir node. Any objection against the following patch? --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- @@ -12191,6 +12191,8 @@ @node Server Variables @subsection Server Variables +@cindex server variables +@cindex server parameters One sticky point when defining variables (both on back ends and in Emacs in general) is that some variables are typically initialized from other @@ -12215,6 +12217,7 @@ (nnml-newsgroups-file "~/my-mail/newsgroups")) @end lisp +Server variables are often called ``server parameters''. @node Servers and Methods @subsection Servers and Methods @@ -14811,7 +14814,7 @@ an nnmaildir group. The results might happen to be useful, but that would be by chance, not by design, and the results might be different in the future. If your split rules create new groups, remember to -supply a @code{create-directory} server parameter. +supply a @code{create-directory} server variable. @end table @subsubsection Group parameters --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Bye, Reiner. -- ,,, (o o) ---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- PGP key available via WWW http://rsteib.home.pages.de/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: server parameter vs. server variable 2003-04-18 21:33 ` server parameter vs. server variable (was: mail splitting to another backend) Reiner Steib @ 2003-04-18 23:03 ` Paul Jarc 2003-04-20 14:35 ` Kai Großjohann 1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2003-04-18 23:03 UTC (permalink / raw) Reiner Steib <4.uce.03.r.s@nurfuerspam.de> wrote: > The only match on `server parameter' is in the new nnmaildir node. Oops. No objections to the change. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: server parameter vs. server variable 2003-04-18 21:33 ` server parameter vs. server variable (was: mail splitting to another backend) Reiner Steib 2003-04-18 23:03 ` server parameter vs. server variable Paul Jarc @ 2003-04-20 14:35 ` Kai Großjohann 2003-04-20 15:11 ` Jesper Harder 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2003-04-20 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Reiner Steib <4.uce.03.r.s@nurfuerspam.de> writes: > Any objection against the following patch? It's a good idea. Does the rest of the manual also use ``quotes'' or does it use `quotes'? -- file-error; Data: (Opening input file no such file or directory ~/.signature) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: server parameter vs. server variable 2003-04-20 14:35 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2003-04-20 15:11 ` Jesper Harder 2003-04-21 20:23 ` texinfo markup fixes (was: server parameter vs. server variable) Reiner Steib 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Jesper Harder @ 2003-04-20 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw) kai.grossjohann@gmx.net (Kai Großjohann) writes: > Does the rest of the manual also use ``quotes'' or does it use > `quotes'? ``quotes''. But I think @dfn is the right mark up in this case, i.e. Server variables are often called @dfn{server parameters}. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* texinfo markup fixes (was: server parameter vs. server variable) 2003-04-20 15:11 ` Jesper Harder @ 2003-04-21 20:23 ` Reiner Steib 2003-04-21 22:05 ` texinfo markup fixes Jesper Harder 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Reiner Steib @ 2003-04-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sun, Apr 20 2003, Jesper Harder wrote: > But I think @dfn is the right mark up in this case, i.e. > > Server variables are often called @dfn{server parameters}. Committed. Shouldn't we have a @dfn{Server variables} in (info "(gnus)Server Variables") too? Where? BTW: I think @sc{...} should be replaced with @acronym or @var in most places. Opinions? @sc{gnus 4.1} @sc{gnus} @sc{html} @sc{imapd} @sc{imap} @sc{mime} @sc{nntp} @sc{oed} @sc{pem} @sc{pgp/mime} @sc{rmail} @sc{s/mime} @sc{semi} @sc{smtp} @sc{soup} @sc{ssl} @sc{url} @sc{vm} ... should all be changed to @acronym, I think. @sc{your@@email.address} should be @var{your@@email.address}. I'm unsure about the following: @sc{Cc:} @sc{Note:} @sc{To:} ? @sc{create} @sc{append} @sc{nov} @sc{xover} @sc{head} @sc{mode reader} Should we use @command{CREATE} or @code? @sc{marks} ("any @sc{marks} files") ? Bye, Reiner. -- ,,, (o o) ---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- PGP key available via WWW http://rsteib.home.pages.de/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: texinfo markup fixes 2003-04-21 20:23 ` texinfo markup fixes (was: server parameter vs. server variable) Reiner Steib @ 2003-04-21 22:05 ` Jesper Harder 2003-04-22 0:31 ` François Pinard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Jesper Harder @ 2003-04-21 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw) Reiner Steib <4.uce.03.r.s@nurfuerspam.de> writes: > BTW: I think @sc{...} should be replaced with @acronym or @var in most > places. Opinions? > > @sc{gnus 4.1} @sc{gnus} I don't think those are acronyms. > @sc{rmail} rmail.texi uses "Rmail", so that's probably the right way to write it. > @sc{html} @sc{imapd} @sc{imap} @sc{mime} @sc{nntp} @sc{oed} @sc{pem} > @sc{pgp/mime} @sc{s/mime} @sc{semi} @sc{smtp} @sc{soup} > @sc{ssl} @sc{url} @sc{vm} > > ... should all be changed to @acronym, I think. I agree. > @sc{your@@email.address} should be @var{your@@email.address}. Either @samp or @var. > I'm unsure about the following: > > @sc{Cc:} @sc{Note:} @sc{To:} ? @samp{Cc:}, @samp{To:}, Note: or maybe @emph{Note:}. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: texinfo markup fixes 2003-04-21 22:05 ` texinfo markup fixes Jesper Harder @ 2003-04-22 0:31 ` François Pinard 2003-04-22 0:36 ` Jesper Harder 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: François Pinard @ 2003-04-22 0:31 UTC (permalink / raw) [Jesper Harder] > > @sc{your@@email.address} should be @var{your@@email.address}. > Either @samp or @var. Or probably better: @email -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: texinfo markup fixes 2003-04-22 0:31 ` François Pinard @ 2003-04-22 0:36 ` Jesper Harder 2003-04-22 0:53 ` François Pinard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Jesper Harder @ 2003-04-22 0:36 UTC (permalink / raw) pinard@iro.umontreal.ca (François Pinard) writes: > [Jesper Harder] > >> > @sc{your@@email.address} should be @var{your@@email.address}. > >> Either @samp or @var. > > Or probably better: @email No, @email is for an actual email address that you might want to contact -- it creates a mailto: link in HTML and PDF output. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: texinfo markup fixes 2003-04-22 0:36 ` Jesper Harder @ 2003-04-22 0:53 ` François Pinard 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: François Pinard @ 2003-04-22 0:53 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8, Size: 567 bytes --] [Jesper Harder] > pinard@iro.umontreal.ca (François Pinard) writes: > > [Jesper Harder] > > > >> > @sc{your@@email.address} should be @var{your@@email.address}. > > > >> Either @samp or @var. > > > > Or probably better: @email > No, @email is for an actual email address that you might want to contact > -- it creates a mailto: link in HTML and PDF output. Oh, I see. You are right then, sorry. In that situation, I would use: @samp{@var{your}@@@var{email}.@var{address}} -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: mail splitting to another backend 2003-04-18 8:56 ` Simon Josefsson 2003-04-18 10:06 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2003-04-18 17:12 ` Ted Zlatanov 2003-04-18 22:48 ` Paul Jarc 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2003-04-18 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, jas@extundo.com wrote: > I take back my idea -- nnimap cannot split mail from mail-sources, > only from a IMAP mailbox. This is probably not very difficult to > fix, though. Just replace the part that fetches mail from the > INBOX, before it is splitted, with some code that gets mail from a > mail-source. But to not interfer with normal mail-sources, I think > this would mean adding a nnimap-mail-sources. While your idea has its uses, I'm not sure it helps here. What I want is very simple, and can't be achieved for the general case with the one-time cross-splitting you demonstrate. I just want users to say "split to destination nnxyz+abc:mail" in nn{mail|imap}-split-fancy and have it work, like users would reasonably expect since the rest of Gnus works with this convention. What's below is generic enough that any backend can use it when splitting, not just nnmail/nnimap - I only looked at nnmail.el though so please correct any inaccuracies. 1) if nnmail-article-group returns a normal (non-prefixed) group name do normal splitting (incidentally, should the ":" character be allowed in group names?) 2) if nnmail-article-group returns a prefixed group name outside the current server, put the message in a "split-queue" group and remember the article number and the destination, perhaps with an extra header inside the article body to make the destination persistent even if the queue redistribution fails. Once mail splitting is done, the queue group is redistributed by moving the articles to their destination; this is fairly easy and any failed moves will simply remain in the queue group until the user creates the destination or deletes the articles. 3) if nnmail-article-group returns a prefixed group name that refers to our own server (I have not yet figured out how to detect this), either strip off the prefix and proceed as in (1) or just do (2), it shouldn't make a difference. I'd be happy to help implement the above, but I doubt I can do the whole thing on my own. Thanks Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: mail splitting to another backend 2003-04-18 17:12 ` mail splitting to another backend Ted Zlatanov @ 2003-04-18 22:48 ` Paul Jarc 2003-04-18 23:00 ` Ted Zlatanov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2003-04-18 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: > 2) if nnmail-article-group returns a prefixed group name outside the > current server, put the message in a "split-queue" group Why the queue? Couldn't the article be immediately stored in the proper destination group? paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: mail splitting to another backend 2003-04-18 22:48 ` Paul Jarc @ 2003-04-18 23:00 ` Ted Zlatanov 2003-04-27 3:09 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2003-04-18 23:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, prj@po.cwru.edu wrote: > Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: >> 2) if nnmail-article-group returns a prefixed group name outside >> the current server, put the message in a "split-queue" group > > Why the queue? Couldn't the article be immediately stored in the > proper destination group? I don't know, I assumed that there was something magical about the splitting environment that makes it imperative to use groups local to the current server. Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: mail splitting to another backend 2003-04-18 23:00 ` Ted Zlatanov @ 2003-04-27 3:09 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 2003-04-29 18:42 ` Ted Zlatanov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 2003-04-27 3:09 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes: > I don't know, I assumed that there was something magical about the > splitting environment that makes it imperative to use groups local to > the current server. The splitting process is kinda optimized -- if you were splitting naively to lots of groups, things would be a lot slower. (Writing .overview/active files repeatedly, etc.) -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: mail splitting to another backend 2003-04-27 3:09 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 2003-04-29 18:42 ` Ted Zlatanov 2003-05-01 6:55 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2003-04-29 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, larsi@gnus.org wrote: > Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes: > >> I don't know, I assumed that there was something magical about the >> splitting environment that makes it imperative to use groups local >> to the current server. > > The splitting process is kinda optimized -- if you were splitting > naively to lots of groups, things would be a lot slower. (Writing > .overview/active files repeatedly, etc.) OK, so going back to my suggestion of a queue group - what's wrong with the suggestion? Just put articles destined for a foreign group in the queue group, and then move them out of the queue based on an artificial header. It won't disturb anything in the splitting process. It seems like it would be pretty easy to implement, too. Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: mail splitting to another backend 2003-04-29 18:42 ` Ted Zlatanov @ 2003-05-01 6:55 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 2003-05-01 6:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes: > OK, so going back to my suggestion of a queue group - what's wrong > with the suggestion? Just put articles destined for a foreign group > in the queue group, and then move them out of the queue based on an > artificial header. It won't disturb anything in the splitting > process. A queue group sounds like it might be the solution; yes. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-05-01 6:55 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-04-17 16:59 mail splitting to another backend Ted Zlatanov 2003-04-17 18:56 ` Paul Jarc 2003-04-17 19:09 ` Ted Zlatanov 2003-04-17 19:53 ` Paul Jarc 2003-04-17 19:41 ` Simon Josefsson 2003-04-17 20:22 ` Ted Zlatanov 2003-04-17 20:31 ` Paul Jarc 2003-04-18 8:56 ` Simon Josefsson 2003-04-18 10:06 ` Kai Großjohann 2003-04-18 21:33 ` server parameter vs. server variable (was: mail splitting to another backend) Reiner Steib 2003-04-18 23:03 ` server parameter vs. server variable Paul Jarc 2003-04-20 14:35 ` Kai Großjohann 2003-04-20 15:11 ` Jesper Harder 2003-04-21 20:23 ` texinfo markup fixes (was: server parameter vs. server variable) Reiner Steib 2003-04-21 22:05 ` texinfo markup fixes Jesper Harder 2003-04-22 0:31 ` François Pinard 2003-04-22 0:36 ` Jesper Harder 2003-04-22 0:53 ` François Pinard 2003-04-18 17:12 ` mail splitting to another backend Ted Zlatanov 2003-04-18 22:48 ` Paul Jarc 2003-04-18 23:00 ` Ted Zlatanov 2003-04-27 3:09 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 2003-04-29 18:42 ` Ted Zlatanov 2003-05-01 6:55 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).