From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/70755 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Steinar Bang Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: That newfangled IMAP thing... Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:40:22 +0200 Organization: Probably a good idea Message-ID: <87lj770y3d.fsf@dod.no> References: <87hbi3jasy.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87pqwmsusz.fsf@news.realpath.org> <8762yd6j4j.fsf@rimspace.net> <87eid0fsil.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87bp84y00w.fsf@keller.adm.naquadah.org> <874odv4ar3.fsf@rimspace.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1284306057 12715 80.91.229.12 (12 Sep 2010 15:40:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 15:40:57 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M19128@lists.math.uh.edu Sun Sep 12 17:40:55 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 1Ouofm-0003O0-V5 for ding-account@gmane.org; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:40:55 +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 1OuofZ-0006ks-1X; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:40:41 -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 1OuofX-0006ke-7N for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:40:39 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OuofS-0002x3-Ai for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:40:38 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1OuofR-00028I-00 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:40:33 +0200 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OuofO-0003FF-B3 for ding@gnus.org; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:40:30 +0200 Original-Received: from cm-84.208.200.46.getinternet.no ([84.208.200.46]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:40:30 +0200 Original-Received: from sb by cm-84.208.200.46.getinternet.no with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:40:30 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Lines: 15 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cm-84.208.200.46.getinternet.no Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:v81FftHmjC4TcnBXZ04gLbGFc5k= X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:70755 Archived-At: >>>>> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen : > When doing client-side splitting, would it be reasonable to only work on > the headers and the first section of each article? I think so. (though I don't use client side splitting right now). > I'm guessing that for mail splitting purposes, it's never interesting to > work on attachments. No... but what about people that use the INBOX for "leftover" messages? It's what I did when I used client side splitting (I think... it's been a while...).