From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/69108 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Engster Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: editing nnimap articles Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:37:58 +0200 Message-ID: <87d44v1w61.fsf@randomsample.de> References: <87ocohn1tt.fsf@uwo.ca> <874oq8vdfu.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87ocogtxmd.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87fx9stvyz.fsf@lifelogs.com> <878wfk2ybo.fsf@randomsample.de> <877hv4tgcu.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1255163961 7499 80.91.229.12 (10 Oct 2009 08:39:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:39:21 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M17524@lists.math.uh.edu Sat Oct 10 10:39:12 2009 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 4.50) id 1MwXTr-00023D-W7 for ding-account@gmane.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:39:12 +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 1MwXSr-0005G3-3y; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 03:38:09 -0500 Original-Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MwXSp-0005Fk-2z for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 03:38:07 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MwXSn-0008Pg-Io for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 03:38:07 -0500 Original-Received: from m61s02.vlinux.de ([83.151.21.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1MwXSm-00074c-00 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:38:04 +0200 Original-Received: from dslc-082-083-038-167.pools.arcor-ip.net ([82.83.38.167] helo=void) by m61s02.vlinux.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MwXSm-0006Uj-4z for ding@gnus.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:38:04 +0200 In-Reply-To: <877hv4tgcu.fsf@lifelogs.com> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:19:45 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Mail-Copies-To: never Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:69108 Archived-At: Ted Zlatanov writes: > On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:53:47 +0200 David Engster wrote: > > DE> Maybe I'm understanding something wrong here. Say you'd like to edit the > DE> mail with article number '10' in INBOX. So you hit 'e' and edit > DE> away. After committing the change, the mail number '10' will not exist > DE> anymore, but there will be a new article, containing the edited text, > DE> but with an article number whatever the IMAP server chose to use (as > DE> long as it wasn't used before). > > DE> Therefore, you did not really 'edit' the article, but created a new > DE> one. > > Right. The proposal will make replacing the article fail and as a side > effect create a new one and delete this one. OK, I think I get it now. I was under the impression the delete-and-create workaround was meant to be "the replacement", but if the replacement actually fails and the creation of the edited article it's just a side effect, I think this should be OK. > I think it's justified; why shouldn't we do it? Does it break > anything? I don't know. :-) It might have some surprising consequences, e.g., if people sort 'by number', edited article will probably appear as newest. But that's a minor thing, and sorting by number with nnimap was always problematical, since it's entirely up to the server how he chooses the article IDs. As Dan already wrote: implement it, and see what happens. :-) > As far as I understand the internals, I think adding a new backend > function for the sake of IMAP is not worth it. It's less effort to > change the docs to explain the exception as long as it's just one > exception. As soon as it extends to 2 or more, it's time to refactor. I agree. Regards, David