From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu (mx2.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.33]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A639241BE for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 03:23:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.208]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1rdLE9-0000000FUjj-3jzW for ml@inbox.vuxu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 20:23:53 -0600 Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1rdLE9-00000000tBj-2hf7 for ml@inbox.vuxu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 20:23:53 -0600 Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1rdLE7-00000000tBc-3hsU for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 20:23:51 -0600 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1rdLE4-00000000xSX-0yYu for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 20:23:51 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Mime-Version:References :Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=4K6SVsqjGPUwIPeysykapX76YANg0l/9uSwVYz8ZSyU=; b=TqSxyjxo8v/R/mHkHxx1pF5y4P GCjhVt4302X16EYTSRreHBRfS9ee6giYQ0130Jikjw2RMKBYqzssDa/phjOGKsITuWuw3MIBUjvAr WrP1KlywFshC/31rj+hb3tkKZnpBAHijTlCZUrY1zH+3g48+0FKr5C4cdcz0Oi6Ucu7A=; Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rdLDx-0006wc-OM for ding@gnus.org; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 03:23:44 +0100 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rdLDw-0004ft-87 for ding@gnus.org; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 03:23:40 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ding@gnus.org From: Eric Abrahamsen Subject: Re: ProtonMail Bridge Patch Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 18:23:29 -0800 Message-ID: <871q93hqam.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <86msrzknim.fsf@kubajecminek.cz> <87frxrq84g.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <86cysvexqv.fsf@kubajecminek.cz> <87y1bhpt1o.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87r0h94pvh.fsf@kubajecminek.cz> <87y1bhmxqa.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87cysruz1x.fsf@kubajecminek.cz> <87r0h4h0xs.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87a5nsruc2.fsf@kubajecminek.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:EWFp+B3g3aXDCIkJw1kSpgSKLxE= List-ID: Precedence: bulk Jakub Ječmínek writes: > "Eric Abrahamsen" writes: > >> Yes! That's it, thanks very much. The question remains where exactly to >> address this, but it's good to know why it's behaving this way. I'll put >> this on the list. > > I don't think we have good/elegant way to do it. I see two options: > > 1. Implement custom sorting in nnimap.el back end. > > This would require substantial work because we'd have to modify all the > definitions where we perform FETCH & SEARCH (AFAIK these two commands > are the only affected). It's possible that all that would be necessary is to add a routine at the bottom of `nnimap-transform-headers', to sort the buffer text. The SEARCH command is handled differently, I believe. > 2. Modify the functions in gnus-range.el to accept unsorted lists > > I don't know the internals good enough to tell if this would be > enough. There might be other parts in Gnus which also expect sorted > headers/messages/lists/etc that I'm not aware of. I don't think modifying gnus-range is a good idea -- if that code requires sorted ranges, we should just make sure it's always given sorted ranges.