From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/88270 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eric Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Marks added in nnir search buffers don't propagate to the actual groups? Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:41:59 -0800 Message-ID: <874lbzrdaw.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <87muptvx9c.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87h8g0ffhc.fsf@hillenius.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1543513265 6889 195.159.176.226 (29 Nov 2018 17:41:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 17:41:05 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M36480@lists.math.uh.edu Thu Nov 29 18:41:01 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.208]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gSQJ8-0001bY-V2 for ding-account@gmane.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:40:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gSQKU-0000MW-Ef; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:42:22 -0600 Original-Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gSQKK-0000Jd-Ak for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:42:12 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gSQKI-0008No-KX for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:42:12 -0600 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (helo=blaine.gmane.org) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gSQKH-0000y8-D0 for ding@gnus.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:42:09 +0100 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gSQI8-0000AE-V4 for ding@gnus.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:39:56 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 35 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:dz3UjD+Mk1iibCCqpH6eN3gAWoA= X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin (3.4.2 2018-09-13) analysis follows Bayesian score: 0.0624 Ham tokens: 0.000-189--7219h-0s--0d--buffers, 0.000-185--7070h-0s--0d--H*M:fsf, 0.000-36--1357h-0s--0d--H*UA:Emacs, 0.000-35--1337h-0s--0d--H*u:Emacs, 0.000-28--1066h-0s--0d--D*ac.uk Spam tokens: 0.997-34869--662h-28047s--0d--H*r:quimby.gnus.org, 0.995-35881--1073h-29170s--0d--HTo:D*gnus.org, 0.994-37022--1168h-30146s--0d--H*RU:quimby.gnus.org, 0.994-37022--1168h-30146s--0d--Hx-spam-relays-external:quimby.gnus.org, 0.994-36972--1358h-30256s--0d--H*RT:quimby.gnus.org Autolearn status: no autolearn_force=no -0.0 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% [score: 0.0624] 0.0 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different 0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:88270 Archived-At: Eric S Fraga writes: > On Thursday, 29 Nov 2018 at 09:35, Gijs Hillenius wrote: >> On 28 November 2018 11:05 Eric Abrahamsen, wrote: >> >>> Can anyone confirm that changes to marks made in an nnir search buffer >>> don't propagate to the real articles? Eg you search for an article, >>> remove its read mark, and then expect to find it unread in the "real" >>> underlying group. Or you tick it, or whatever. >>> >>> This is something I noticed ages ago, but sort of figured it was a >>> problem in my config, but now I've looked into it and so far as I can >>> tell this is just the way it works. >> >> This is also how I understand Gnus. I nearly automatically do A W >> gnus-warp-to-article to set or remove tickmarks > > Is it also the case generally for virtual groups? Seems like it is but > it would good if it were not. I would like marks to propagate to the > actual email wherever it might lie. Thanks for both your responses. It finally occurred to me, long after the fact, to look at the "nnir" section of the manual, and it does explicitly say that the groups are ephemeral and marks won't propagate to the backend. Oh well. I sure thought they once did, though. "virtual" groups aren't the same as "ephemeral" groups -- marks set in virtual groups are propagated to the backends, but not those set in ephemeral groups. (Which begs the question of why there's a `nnir-request-set-mark' function, but oh well.) Thanks, Eric