hi, i have my mail-sources set to '((group)), so that each of my nnml groups has a mail-source of its own (typically reading a spool file or a local maildir, populated asynchronously). is there a way of having split rules (fancy or not) that apply /only/ to a given nnml group, rather than globally to all incoming mail? or, alternatively, is it possible to have a (global) split rule that says (when nnmail-resplit-incoming is t) something like: "leave this message in the group which fetched it via its mail-source parameter"? cheers, jao -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Jose A. Ortega Ruiz wrote: > i have my mail-sources set to '((group)), so that each of my > nnml groups has a mail-source of its own (typically reading > a spool file or a local maildir, populated asynchronously). > is there a way of having split rules (fancy or not) that > apply /only/ to a given nnml group, rather than globally to > all incoming mail? Respooling perhaps ... how often/when is this supposed to happen? > or, alternatively, is it possible to have a (global) split > rule that says (when nnmail-resplit-incoming is t) something > like: "leave this message in the group which fetched it via > its mail-source parameter"? You can use functions instead of regexps both with fancy and regular so put it there if so, I guess? > A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? Ha. See RFC 3676, section 4.3 (Usenet Signature Convention) https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.txt for the second most annoying thing. (Actually it isn't so annoying.) -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal
On Mon, Nov 08 2021, Emanuel Berg wrote: > Jose A. Ortega Ruiz wrote: > >> i have my mail-sources set to '((group)), so that each of my >> nnml groups has a mail-source of its own (typically reading >> a spool file or a local maildir, populated asynchronously). >> is there a way of having split rules (fancy or not) that >> apply /only/ to a given nnml group, rather than globally to >> all incoming mail? > > Respooling perhaps ... how often/when is this supposed > to happen? every time i import new mail, so i think that's not going to be practical. >> or, alternatively, is it possible to have a (global) split >> rule that says (when nnmail-resplit-incoming is t) something >> like: "leave this message in the group which fetched it via >> its mail-source parameter"? > > You can use functions instead of regexps both with fancy and > regular so put it there if so, I guess? yes, one of my first thoughts, but when a splitting function is called, the incoming mail has been inserted in a temp current buffer and there seems to be no way of knowing what its original mail-source was (but i have to try again and check the value of that variable, maybe it's still set... i am not sure i tried that). thanks, jao -- Besides the noble art of getting things done, there is the noble art of leaving things undone. The wisdom of life consists in the elimination of nonessentials. -Lin Yutang, writer and translator (1895-1976)
On Mon, Nov 08 2021, Emanuel Berg wrote:
[...]
>> or, alternatively, is it possible to have a (global) split
>> rule that says (when nnmail-resplit-incoming is t) something
>> like: "leave this message in the group which fetched it via
>> its mail-source parameter"?
>
> You can use functions instead of regexps both with fancy and
> regular so put it there if so, I guess?
actually, turns out it's even simpler: gnus adds a header called
X-Gnus-Mail-Source with the value of the message's mail-source, so since
i can infer the nnml default group from it, i can write the default rule
i wished for above!
thanks for your suggestion, though... it was playing again with
splitting functions that i discovered this (undocumented, i think)
header :)
cheers,
jao
--
You are never too old to be what you might have been.
-George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans), novelist (1819-1880)
Jose A. Ortega Ruiz wrote: > yes, one of my first thoughts, but when a splitting function > is called, the incoming mail has been inserted in a temp > current buffer and there seems to be no way of knowing what > its original mail-source was (but i have to try again and > check the value of that variable, maybe it's still set... > i am not sure i tried that). So you are sorting based on something that has happened yet didn't leave a trace? Maybe you can tell it to add a header just telling? Then you can split on that super-easy with a regexp, no need for a function. -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal