gmail and gnus-summary-move-article

gmail and gnus-summary-move-article

[George McNinch]

Hi,

So this is something that has bugged me for a good while...

Perhaps there is a good solution, or perhaps not.

I have some gnus groups attached to a gmail account, and some nnml
groups -- via some configuration like so:

,----
| (setq gnus-select-method             '(nnnil "")
|       gnus-secondary-select-methods  '((nnml "local-mail"
| 					       (nnml-directory "/home/george/Mail/"))
|   				         (nnimap "gmail" 
| 					         (nnimap-address "imap.gmail.com")
| 					         (nnimap-inbox "INBOX"))))
`----

Say I'm in the gmail group INBOX, put point on an article, enter the key
sequence

B m

(to perform gnus-summary-move-article )

and specify an nnml group as the target, everything works fine
*except* that the article is not really deleted on the gmail account
(all "gmail tags" are removed, but the article is still present on the
server -- it can be found in "All Mail").

In fact, the usual way I "delete" articles in the gmail account is via
expiration: I mark them with E in the summary buffer, and I have a
gnus-parameters setting for those accounts which sets

      (expiry-target . "nnimap+personal:[Gmail]/Trash")

So when I expire articles, they get moved to the "gmail trash", and then
gmail regularly prunes its Trash folder without further intervention.

And in fact, to move articles to one of the nnml groups from one of my
gmail groups, I don't use "B m" as above, but rather I use "B c"
("gnus-summary-copy-article") and once done I subsequently mark the
articles for expiry.

This is more-or-less OK, except that if I process-mark (say) a handful
of articles, then use "B c" to copy them, afterwards the process-marks
have vanished, and I have to mark the articles by memory for expiry.

Mostly I manage this without too many errors, but surely (!?) there is
some automagical way to apply

  gnus-summary-copy-article

followed by

  gnus-summary-mark-as-expirable

to all process-marked articles in a summary buffer?

Well, this is perhaps a little bit awkward, since I suppose
gnus-summary-mark-as-expirable doesn't use process-marks.

Ideas? Simpler ways to do this?

Thanks for any suggestions!

Best,
george


-- 
   + + +   George McNinch <gmcninch(at)gmail.com>                        
   + + +   http://gmcninch.math.tufts.edu                             

Re: gmail and gnus-summary-move-article

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

George McNinch <gmcninch@gmail.com> writes:

> Say I'm in the gmail group INBOX, put point on an article, enter the key
> sequence
>
> B m
>
> (to perform gnus-summary-move-article )
>
> and specify an nnml group as the target, everything works fine
> *except* that the article is not really deleted on the gmail account
> (all "gmail tags" are removed, but the article is still present on the
> server -- it can be found in "All Mail").

Hm.  That sounds like a bug.  Or is it at Gmail quirk?  

> Mostly I manage this without too many errors, but surely (!?) there is
> some automagical way to apply
>
>   gnus-summary-copy-article
>
> followed by
>
>   gnus-summary-mark-as-expirable
>
> to all process-marked articles in a summary buffer?

Well, you could write a function that calls those two functions.  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Re: gmail and gnus-summary-move-article

[George McNinch]

>> Say I'm in the gmail group INBOX, put point on an article, 
>> enter the key sequence B m (to perform 
>> gnus-summary-move-article ) and specify an nnml group as the 
>> target, everything works fine *except* that the article is not 
>> really deleted on the gmail account (all "gmail tags" are 
>> removed, but the article is still present on the server -- it 
>> can be found in "All Mail"). 
 
> Hm.  That sounds like a bug.  Or is it at Gmail quirk? 

I'm basically certain this is just a quirk of Gmail.
 
>> Mostly I manage this without too many errors, but surely (!?) 
>> there is some automagical way to apply 
>> gnus-summary-copy-article followed by 
>> gnus-summary-mark-as-expirable to all process-marked articles 
>> in a summary buffer? 
 
> Well, you could write a function that calls those two functions. 
> :-) 

Right... After writing this, I think I had decided to do that. But 
I realized that I'm not sure I understand how to 
recognize/interact with the process marks, though I confess I 
really only had a quick look. Then I got distracted.

Looking again, I recall noting that gnus-summary-mark-as-expirable 
doesn't interact with the process marks, as-is. (Well, outside of 
my perhaps odd-ball proposed usage, there is no reason it 
should...)

Anyhow, perhaps I'll try again.

best,
george
-- 
George McNinch http://gmcninch.math.tufts.edu 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Re: gmail and gnus-summary-move-article

[Eric Abrahamsen]

George McNinch <gmcninch@gmail.com> writes:

>>> Say I'm in the gmail group INBOX, put point on an article, enter
>>> the key sequence B m (to perform gnus-summary-move-article ) and
>>> specify an nnml group as the target, everything works fine *except*
>>> that the article is not really deleted on the gmail account (all
>>> "gmail tags" are removed, but the article is still present on the
>>> server -- it can be found in "All Mail"). 
>
>> Hm.  That sounds like a bug.  Or is it at Gmail quirk? 
>
> I'm basically certain this is just a quirk of Gmail.

Right, Gmail treats groups as tags (one message can be in many) instead
of groups (the message is the message, and it's in one of your groups).
Deletion from a group means "remove this group/tag from this message",
not "delete this message". You have to move a message to "Trash" to
delete it.

>>> Mostly I manage this without too many errors, but surely (!?) there
>>> is some automagical way to apply gnus-summary-copy-article followed
>>> by gnus-summary-mark-as-expirable to all process-marked articles in
>>> a summary buffer? 
>
>> Well, you could write a function that calls those two functions. :-) 
>
> Right... After writing this, I think I had decided to do that. But I
> realized that I'm not sure I understand how to recognize/interact with
> the process marks, though I confess I really only had a quick look.
> Then I got distracted.
>
> Looking again, I recall noting that gnus-summary-mark-as-expirable
> doesn't interact with the process marks, as-is. (Well, outside of my
> perhaps odd-ball proposed usage, there is no reason it should...)

Expiration won't actually delete a Gmail message, unless the expiry
process moves the message to Trash.

E

Re: gmail and gnus-summary-move-article

[George McNinch]

>> 
>>> Well, you could write a function that calls those two 
>>> functions. :-) 
>>  Right... After writing this, I think I had decided to do 
>>  that. But I 
>> realized that I'm not sure I understand how to 
>> recognize/interact with the process marks, though I confess I 
>> really only had a quick look.  Then I got distracted.  Looking 
>> again, I recall noting that gnus-summary-mark-as-expirable 
>> doesn't interact with the process marks, as-is. (Well, outside 
>> of my perhaps odd-ball proposed usage, there is no reason it 
>> should...) 
 
> Expiration won't actually delete a Gmail message, unless the 
> expiry process moves the message to Trash. 

That was exactly what I proposed in my original post, though.

(

>In fact, the usual way I "delete" articles in the gmail account 
>is via expiration: I mark them with E in the summary buffer, and 
>I have a gnus-parameters setting for those accounts which sets  
>      (expiry-target . "nnimap+personal:[Gmail]/Trash") 
> So when I expire articles, they get moved to the "gmail trash", 
>and then gmail regularly prunes its Trash folder without further 
>intervention. 


) 
 
 

-- 
George McNinch http://gmcninch.math.tufts.edu 
oOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

Re: gmail and gnus-summary-move-article

[Eric Abrahamsen]

George McNinch <gmcninch@gmail.com> writes:

>>>
>>>> Well, you could write a function that calls those two functions.
>>>> :-) 
>>>  Right... After writing this, I think I had decided to do  that.
>>> But I realized that I'm not sure I understand how to
>>> recognize/interact with the process marks, though I confess I
>>> really only had a quick look.  Then I got distracted.  Looking
>>> again, I recall noting that gnus-summary-mark-as-expirable doesn't
>>> interact with the process marks, as-is. (Well, outside of my
>>> perhaps odd-ball proposed usage, there is no reason it should...) 
>
>> Expiration won't actually delete a Gmail message, unless the expiry
>> process moves the message to Trash. 
>
> That was exactly what I proposed in my original post, though.

Oops, sorry, lost the thread!