From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/81800 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sivaram Neelakantan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: some size calc error in pop3.el? Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 23:05:37 +0530 Message-ID: <82r4vdvxqu.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1335288995 28649 80.91.229.3 (24 Apr 2012 17:36:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:36:35 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M30072@lists.math.uh.edu Tue Apr 24 19:36:34 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SMjf8-0000kf-C7 for ding-account@gmane.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:36:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1SMjeg-0007zG-O2; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:35:58 -0500 Original-Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1SMjed-0007yx-Sn for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:35:55 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SMjec-0003hq-Mr for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:35:55 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SMjea-000317-LJ for ding@gnus.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:35:52 +0200 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SMjeX-0000Hc-2u for ding@gnus.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:35:49 +0200 Original-Received: from 122.179.63.19 ([122.179.63.19]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:35:49 +0200 Original-Received: from nsivaram.net by 122.179.63.19 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:35:49 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 19 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 122.179.63.19 User-Mail-Address: nsivaram.net@gmail.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.110019 (No Gnus v0.19) Emacs/23.4 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:7wPSDbDzMH+vAVtYeVh44WMe0YY= X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin (3.3.1 2010-03-16) analysis follows Bayesian score: 0.0000 Ham tokens: 0.000-1739--9667h-0s--0d--H*u:Emacs, 0.000-1480--8226h-0s--0d--H*u:Gnus, 0.000-866--4813h-0s--0d--HX-Complaints-To:sk:usenet@, 0.000-864--4805h-0s--0d--H*r:sk:1AlnuQ-, 0.000-864--4805h-0s--0d--HX-Injected-Via-Gmane:gmane.org Spam tokens: 0.997-1--0h-5s--1d--idly, 0.942-10354--5278h-84823s--0d--HX-Spam-Relays-External:quimby.gnus.org, 0.942-10354--5278h-84823s--0d--H*RU:quimby.gnus.org, 0.938-9580--5443h-81519s--0d--HTo:D*gnus.org, 0.932-9608--6375h-86728s--0d--HX-Spam-Relays-Internal:quimby.gnus.org Autolearn status: no 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (nsivaram.net[at]gmail.com) 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 1.2 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.9 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED ADSP custom_med hit, and not from a mailing list List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:81800 Archived-At: So, I was idly looking at the Messages buffer(yep, slow day) and see this Opening TLS connection to `pop.gmail.com'...done pop3 retrieved 0KB (0%) [2 times] pop3 retrieved 1KB (3%) pop3 retrieved 5KB (13%) pop3 retrieved 9KB (22%) ... pop3 retrieved 42KB (103%) Wrote c:/Documents and Settings/s/Application Data/Mail/sas-l/2440 Wrote c:/Documents and Settings/s/Application Data/Mail/sas-l/2441 What's with 103%? Shouldn't it be 100%? Just asking.... sivaram --