From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/71387 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: More IMAP testing, please Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:24:01 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <8739t1j4i6.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87ocbsuu51.fsf@andy.bu.edu> <87iq20ymof.fsf@rimspace.net> <87mxrb313t.fsf@rimspace.net> <87mxrb6nlv.fsf@lifelogs.com> <877hif6mzd.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87tylj57ka.fsf@keller.adm.naquadah.org> <87wrqf56n4.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87tylisxh5.fsf@uwo.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1285161916 28369 80.91.229.12 (22 Sep 2010 13:25:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:25:16 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M19760@lists.math.uh.edu Wed Sep 22 15:25:14 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OyPJv-0000sV-NU for ding-account@gmane.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:25:12 +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 1OyPJr-0001rb-Lf; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:25:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OyPJq-0001rM-9e for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:25:06 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OyPJp-0001Yv-Ai for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:25:06 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1OyPJo-000869-00 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:25:04 +0200 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OyPJn-0000nq-Ne for ding@gnus.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:25:03 +0200 Original-Received: from 38.98.147.130 ([38.98.147.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:25:03 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:25:03 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 29 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.98.147.130 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" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Bnm49WL0cN0YMmIG5v2dX5VabsI= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:71387 Archived-At: On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:33:26 -0400 Dan Christensen wrote: DC> Ted Zlatanov writes: >> It places an extra burden on every user ("what is that? should I use >> it?") for the sake of the few who don't have UIDPLUS. Articles marked >> as `E' (expirable) are clearly meant to be deleted sooner or later so >> doing it sooner is not a problem IMO. DC> Again, I don't see what articles marked with 'E' have to do with the DC> expunging problem. (I read Lars' reply to my last message, and it DC> confirmed how I thought things worked.) If I mark an article with E, DC> and Gnus does a full expunge on the IMAP group, that article will be DC> fine, since it isn't marked as \Deleted. I mentioned this in my bug followup: it used to be marked as \Deleted and expunged after `gnus-summary-expire-articles-now'. So you are right about the current behavior but it's not consistent with the prior behavior. DC> (But if I'm misunderstanding something, then let me make it clear that I DC> *don't* think it's fine for articles marked 'E' to be expired early DC> just because I do `B DEL' on a different article. But I don't think DC> this will happen.) I think so far the votes on that behavior are 2 in favor of "just expunge," 2 in favor of "do a hack to work around the lack of UIDPLUS," and 1 (yours) in favor of "don't expunge in that case." Ted