From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/79390 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Christensen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Gnus Questions #1: Article Expiry Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:00:16 -0400 Message-ID: <874o2zrxgv.fsf@uwo.ca> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1309982465 693 80.91.229.12 (6 Jul 2011 20:01:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:01:05 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M27686@lists.math.uh.edu Wed Jul 06 22:00:56 2011 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 1QeYHG-00038m-D4 for ding-account@gmane.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:00:54 +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 1QeYH8-0003yg-9k; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:00:46 -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 1QeYH7-0003yW-2M for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:00:45 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QeYH5-0001NZ-2l for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:00:44 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QeYH2-000600-70 for ding@gnus.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:00:40 +0200 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QeYH1-00032E-LW for ding@gnus.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:00:39 +0200 Original-Received: from cpe0023bee5dd21-cm0023bee5dd1e.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([99.249.62.111]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:00:39 +0200 Original-Received: from jdc by cpe0023bee5dd21-cm0023bee5dd1e.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:00:39 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Lines: 103 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cpe0023bee5dd21-cm0023bee5dd1e.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.110012 (No Gnus v0.12) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Mail-Copies-To: never Cancel-Lock: sha1:tv5XshCB4sPM03wvmkB8nJrR488= X-Spam-Score: -4.9 (----) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:79390 Archived-At: Dave Abrahams writes: >>> * What's the difference between `gnus-summary-expire-articles' and >>> `gnus-summary-expire-articles-now'? The documentation doesn't make >>> that clear. >> >> The latter says: >> >> "This means that *all* articles that are marked as expirable will be >> deleted forever, right now." > > Of course I've read that line over and over and it isn't getting > clearer. As far as I understand, the only difference between the two functions is that the "now" version ignores the expiry-wait setting (i.e. it assumes it is 0). >> Well, sort of. With total expire, you expire all old articles. > > Do you really mean "old?" The doc seems to say you expire all articles > with a read mark. You are right, Lars was being brief. >>> * From [[info:gnus#Adaptive Scoring]] I think I conclude that adaptive >>> scoring takes effect at expiry time, and "auto-expire" changes all >>> read marks to `E' too early for adaptive scoring to do its work. Is >>> that right? >> >> No. If you set the "E" mark on all articles (whether automatically or >> manually), Adaptive Scoring won't be able to tell whether you're read an >> article or not, so it can't do its thing. > > I think you mean "Yes" above. Otherwise, it's not consistent with the > next sentence, which seems to confirm that my understanding was spot-on > :-). Am I missing something? I think he meant "No". It doesn't happen at expiry time, but when it happens, it depends on how articles are marked. >>> * [[info:gnus#Expiring Mail]] seems to contradict my understanding, >>> though: it claims that "auto-expire" gives me "more marks to work >>> with." >>> >>> ,---- >>> | Another advantage of auto-expire is that you get more marks to work >>> | with: for the articles that are supposed to stick around, you can >>> | still choose between tick and dormant and read marks. But with >>> | total-expire, you only have dormant and ticked to choose from >>> `---- >>> >>> Okay, now that I read it again I think it's saying that with >>> "auto-expire," if I can somehow produce a mark other than `E' for an >>> article that's been read,, that article can persist even if it's >>> neither dormant or ticked. That's fine as far as it goes but >>> mentioning it seems almost pointless, since Gnus is going to >>> automatically mark everything I read as `E'. What am I missing? >> >> Is it talking about adaptive scoring there? > > I don't think so; at that point in the text it hasn't raised adaptive > scoring yet. It's in the paragraph that begins, "Which one is better, > auto-expire or total-expire?" It's definitely talking about auto-expire/total-expire, and that paragraph is the reason I use auto-expire. It lets me use the read mark on an article without it being considered for deletion. >>> * Aren't there a bajillion other ways to do the following, including >>> by customizing the "auto-expire" group parameter? Why would I do it >>> as below (see [[info:gnus#Expiring Mail]]) instead? >>> >>> ,---- >>> | To avoid having articles marked as read marked as >>> | expirable automatically, you can put something like the following in >>> | your `~/.gnus.el' file: >>> | >>> | (remove-hook 'gnus-mark-article-hook >>> | 'gnus-summary-mark-read-and-unread-as-read) >>> | (add-hook 'gnus-mark-article-hook 'gnus-summary-mark-unread-as-read) >>> | >>> `---- >> >> Yes, that seems rather excessive. > > Any objections if I remove that passage in my patch? I use the above settings and don't know any other way to accomplish it. If you change auto-expire to nil, then an article will never automatically get the expire mark when read. The above changes mean that when you read an unread message, it gets the expirable mark, but when you read an already read message, it doesn't get marked expirable. This seems like it should be the default: if I have changed the expirable mark to a plain read mark once, it's because I don't want the article to expire, so why would I want it to get marked expirable when I re-read the article? Data loss ensues... Maybe it will help to clear your confusion about the last two issues to emphasize that an article can be read or expirable, and it's easy to switch an article between the two marks. Dan