Re: splitting working now : some issues/questions

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:17:25 +0200 Richard Riley <rileyrg@googlemail.com> wrote: 

RR> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> For spam-split and general splitting, actually I have wanted for a long
>> time the group name to be qualified, but currently splitting only works
>> to the same server.  To keep with the Gnus conventions, I'd prefer to
>> keep group names qualified whenever poassible.

RR> Yes, but why?

1) to keep Gnus consistent

2) to avoid inconveniencing the people who have been using spam.el for
many years now

3) because it uses the Gnus "move article" facility, which uses
qualified names

RR> If you are working a group in a certain server and something
RR> operates on that server, unqualified makes a lot more sense and is
RR> simply more convenient keeping in mind the manual talking about not
RR> qualifying in other such settings. "spam" means "spam" folder on
RR> this server, "nnml+otherserver:spam" means something else.

Well, spam.el has been around for a while now (since 2002).  You are the
first person to say they want the move destination to be unqualified.
So while it may be that all the other users have been annoyed by that
but kept quiet, it's more likely it's not a big deal.  So unless I hear
from more people supporting your view, I'd rather keep the status quo.

Thanks
Ted