From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/72859 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: splitting working now : some issues/questions Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:04:43 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <8762xajdh0.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <9i4ocwyc69.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> <87wrpstwvz.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8uy6a67ugj.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> <87sk0ek21m.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87eibyjuyq.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1286723107 28747 80.91.229.12 (10 Oct 2010 15:05:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:05:07 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M21231@lists.math.uh.edu Sun Oct 10 17:05:05 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 1P4xSS-0005TW-VQ for ding-account@gmane.org; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:05:05 +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 1P4xSM-0001pb-48; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:04:58 -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 1P4xSK-0001pO-S7 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:04:56 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P4xSJ-00035Y-KW for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:04:56 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1P4xSI-00019O-00 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:04:54 +0200 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P4xSF-0005NK-AV for ding@gnus.org; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:04:51 +0200 Original-Received: from c-24-14-16-248.hsd1.il.comcast.net ([24.14.16.248]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:04:51 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by c-24-14-16-248.hsd1.il.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:04:51 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 32 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-24-14-16-248.hsd1.il.comcast.net 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:S0W9uYStUFsFfof5E+4gIC0pits= X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:72859 Archived-At: On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:17:25 +0200 Richard Riley wrote: RR> Ted Zlatanov 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