From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/76368 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: "no process" gnus bug when moving messages from nnml to imap folder Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 13:26:57 -0600 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87k4hfha7y.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <8762t1dww9.fsf@gnus.org> <871v3orhhw.fsf@gnus.org> <87k4hgq1du.fsf@gnus.org> <83d3n8b3dq.fsf@gnu.org> <87bp2skwok.fsf@gnus.org> <8762szisoq.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87oc6r3c5z.fsf@gnus.org> <87wrlfhcx0.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87k4hfsjcl.fsf@gnus.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1296847824 30395 80.91.229.12 (4 Feb 2011 19:30:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 19:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 04 20:30:20 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PlRMJ-0002Ln-IX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:30:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46053 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PlRMJ-0003FW-1h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:30:19 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39996 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PlRME-0003FR-Sb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:30:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PlRMA-0005UT-OJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:30:14 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:36914) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PlRMA-0005UL-DD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:30:10 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PlRM5-00028N-BX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:30:05 +0100 Original-Received: from 38.98.147.130 ([38.98.147.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:30:05 +0100 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:30:05 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 30 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.98.147.130 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:dyZ4QRF696Lwl30x754Iw5EpKtE= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:135588 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:76368 Archived-At: On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:14:18 -0800 Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: LI> Ted Zlatanov writes: >> Sure. It may not work to autodetect gmail.com with Google Apps, if >> those support the IMAP access, since they run under another domain name. >> Can someone knowledgeable about that comment? If my suspicion is right, >> it would have to be a backend slot variable. LI> The greeting is LI> * OK Gimap ready for requests from 198.144.208.130 k9if2067598fax.47 LI> so if we just match for "OK Gimap", then we should probably be safe. Sounds good. LI> I'm wondering whether to over-engineer this by adding a quirks mode LI> mechanism, or whether to just special-case this in the -request-accept LI> function, or, hm. LI> I'd really prefer that Gnus queried the user instead of the backend, but LI> Gnus knows absolutely nothing about this, so I guess it would make most LI> sense to just add a couple of if statements to nnimap-request-accept, LI> even though it's kinda uglyish. From my viewpoint as a licenced Over LI> Engineer. If it's a single special case, do whatever is simplest. We can over-engineer it when there's another such case. Ted