From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu (mx1.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.32]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09ACF210AE for ; Wed, 22 May 2024 16:24:00 +0200 (CEST) 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 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1s9msp-00000000ET0-2cBn for ml@inbox.vuxu.org; Wed, 22 May 2024 09:23:59 -0500 Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1s9msp-00000004im9-1NB7 for ml@inbox.vuxu.org; Wed, 22 May 2024 09:23:59 -0500 Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1s9msm-00000004im0-2VST for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 22 May 2024 09:23:56 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1s9msi-00000000ESG-0ULy for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 22 May 2024 09:23:56 -0500 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=Tu7eXz0GjPpz4l6bCOJzintOBQrrp022/KJl+psKDX0=; b=OIp+4fO5FYamLFTJP788ij51su xTBtz52LmxjKLz68Sj4Cv+fWgcHD6O+Dersm6qS957rEcea2gkLYGQazB3vqyR1V/HSOOXduD3hUV CzAY6SobPpuDFJf6IUN8Eid6t3CmFf7iFuHGKgOPSwroQGveBIcADzghuahV+F9XA9io=; 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 1s9msa-0003g2-OY for ding@gnus.org; Wed, 22 May 2024 16:23:47 +0200 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1s9msZ-0000Px-59 for ding@gnus.org; Wed, 22 May 2024 16:23:43 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org To: ding@gnus.org From: Emanuel Berg Subject: Re: Updating definition of "bogus" groups? Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 16:23:32 +0200 Message-ID: <87msoi6i3f.fsf@dataswamp.org> References: <87zfsi9408.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <871q5ufb7a.fsf@eps142.cdf.udc.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:KnuAr+3zy20bU/i7Lx6NRobmBpM= Mail-Copies-To: never List-ID: Precedence: bulk Alberto Luaces wrote: >> This seems like it would be more handy for cleaning up >> "dangling" groups. >> >> Does anyone have an opinion on that idea, one way or >> the other? > > I would remove the term `bogus` altogether, it's too vague, > and replace it with something more descriptive. This is > independent from the fact that the behaviour could be more > useful, as you describe. The "secondary" term is also problematic as in practice it is a way of using _several_ methods, and they don't necessarily relate so any hierarchy what is the primary method and what isn't doesn't make any sense necessarily. This will probably remain so, but yes, if you build even more problematic definitions on top of that, it gets even more problematic. But instead of getting confused by terminology, which is always going to be incorrect to some degree in any applied endeavor, if we are talking `gnus-check-bogus-newsgroups', what is that it does that is useful? What to do, or not do for that matter, should be based on that. -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal