From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/52869 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: gnus-registry-split-fancy-with-parent misfeature or minibug? Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 13:19:06 -0400 Organization: =?koi8-r?q?=F4=C5=CF=C4=CF=D2=20=FA=CC=C1=D4=C1=CE=CF=D7?= @ Cienfuegos Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Message-ID: <4nn0h8i9yt.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> References: <848yswgzqs.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> <84fzn2amlc.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1054056092 2570 80.91.224.249 (27 May 2003 17:21:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 17:21:32 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ding-owner+M1413@lists.math.uh.edu Tue May 27 19:21:29 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19Ki57-0000Mj-00 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 19:17:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 19Ki6d-0007p9-00; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:19:23 -0500 Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com ([64.157.176.121]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 19Ki6T-0007p1-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:19:13 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 80121 invoked by alias); 27 May 2003 17:19:13 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 80115 invoked from network); 27 May 2003 17:19:13 -0000 Original-Received: from clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (134.174.9.41) by sclp3.sclp.com with SMTP; 27 May 2003 17:19:13 -0000 Original-Received: from lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu (lockgroove [134.174.9.133]) by clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h4RHJ7I00964 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 13:19:08 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (from tzz@localhost) by lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.0) id h4RHJ7N23334; Tue, 27 May 2003 13:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6;d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?q?<84fzn2amlc.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duis?= =?iso-8859-1?q?burg.de>_(Kai_Gro=DFjohann's_message_of_"Sun,_25_May_200?= =?iso-8859-1?q?3_20:49:03_+0200")?= User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (usg-unix-v) Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:52869 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:52869 On Sun, 25 May 2003, kai.grossjohann@gmx.net wrote: > Ted Zlatanov writes: > >> Use the gnus-registry-ignored-groups variable or the >> registry-ignore group parameter. I have: >> >> (setq gnus-registry-ignored-groups '(("nntp" t) >> ("nnrss" t))) >> >> That way, messages in those groups won't be registered. >> What would be a suitable default, any suggestions? > > I'm not so happy with this approach. I read an IMAP server via > nnimap and a POP server via mail-sources and nnml. So suppose I > read a message on the IMAP server and move it to nnimap:INBOX.foo, > then I compose a followup. The followup happens to contain the > "wrong" email message, and so replies go to the POP mailbox. So > nnmail-split-fancy will put the reply into nnml:INBOX.foo which > isn't what I wanted. > If you say that this is a rather unusual setup, I'd agree. So maybe > that's not so convincing an argument. (Especially the part about > the "wrong" email address which leads to parts of the same thread > coming in via IMAP whereas other parts come in via POP.) I think fully qualified group names would help you here. Most people, I assumed, would not get a followup to a message in a backend different from the one where message is stored. I'll get the FQGN addition to the gnus-registry.el done as time permits - feel free to put it in sooner. I'm still thinking of a faster storage format... > But there is another thing: I gather that originally you intended to > use the registry for other things, not just > gnus-registry-split-fancy-with-parent? If this is the case, then > there might be a good reason for registering nntp articles, as well. Only one other purpose on my horizon: spam processing. I can see the problems there - maybe at that point the registry will *remember* group names in the gnus-registry-ignored-groups alist, but won't offer them as suggestions for splitting with the parents. I think that's the sensible way to do it. Ted