From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 30446 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2022 13:35:00 -0000 Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu (129.7.128.32) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 3 Feb 2022 13:35:00 -0000 Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.208]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1nFcGI-0087tT-4M for ml@inbox.vuxu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 07:34:58 -0600 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1nFcGG-003tPh-Rt for ml@inbox.vuxu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 07:34:56 -0600 Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1nFcGE-003tPY-Mv for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 07:34:54 -0600 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1nFcGC-00FvEY-Mb for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 07:34:54 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject: From:To:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=MiRz4JfrcwysgKBpbxbEIA3stmJDQg8yhAe2yEGTw0k=; b=tZMehF0Kh8tUFxX1xnkkH5oMSb xLSPLIRZMVlalXXtSAny1xErDmMqAzn4SSzqhx6f9UbTz75EJevNXAWUMbvulaVY1ry+ZA2CJJ3WV 6Y106K/tHMCgLTJnMf+s0RQoNTa+GNmn2g4n2nQmgbD/HZX02FcAz/pOebH95JU0Ni/M=; Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nFcG4-0000YP-UN for ding@gnus.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 14:34:47 +0100 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nFcG1-0008IM-Mk for ding@gnus.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 14:34:41 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ding@gnus.org From: Eric S Fraga Subject: Re: feature request: differentiate between read and automatically marked read Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 13:34:36 +0000 Organization: On the Interweb somewhere Message-ID: <87iltw5b0z.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> References: <87pmo41ghm.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <87v8xw87bn.fsf@dick> <87pmo4m86n.fsf@gnu.org> <87r18k85kj.fsf@dick> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:0i0iydWM+Bn5vfvbTSHdJuUv46o= X-Url: http://twitter.com/ericsfraga/ List-ID: Precedence: bulk On Thursday, 3 Feb 2022 at 08:04, dick wrote: > In either case, it's semantic-free tallying. It is. Yes, semantic based logic could arguably be "better" but sorting without semantics can be useful. Would I make any claims about it always working? No, but what matters (to me) is that it works in practice for my use case. YMMV, of course. > I know of no companies, Google-scale or otherwise, who have stood behind > an algo that opines about the read-worthiness of one's mail unless the > mail is 99.98% probable spam. So what? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... ;-) -- Eric S Fraga with org 9.5.2 in Emacs 29.0.50 on Debian 11.2