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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 22194 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2020 14:58:32 -0000 Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu (129.7.128.32) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 25 Nov 2020 14:58:32 -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) (envelope-from ) id 1khwEV-00C5bS-U1; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:57:23 -0600 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1khwEU-00DLCf-QZ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:57:22 -0600 Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1khwEQ-00DLAy-Nv for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:57:18 -0600 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 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1khwEO-00C5Zc-TX for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:57:18 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Mime-Version:References :Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: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=S7mfWxnFBRj+BLrSj5jkR64iuLuSnWSGXCyZeFnxPb4=; b=Dyu5DVO4xjfpXpURSWpqpqwFRN NDsqvsVGYHGYApMQw88qZ6MvPG7+rnshU8NRnHaVjNkDDhxH8Q1Rm/psymmYmKiBHjxIpt7yU9lhX HqvoN5FQRcyKH+ouoDWnWGnVMmFeiXsTKg/2lHeD/e4yb07WqPn63+o1AyGvKkS1xs3w=; Received: from static.214.254.202.116.clients.your-server.de ([116.202.254.214] helo=ciao.gmane.io) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1khwEH-00089P-7w for ding@gnus.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:57:12 +0100 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1khwEG-0000mH-77 for ding@gnus.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:57:08 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ding@gnus.org From: Eric S Fraga Subject: Re: gnus-search: do not limit search to specific groups? Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 14:57:03 +0000 Organization: On the Interweb somewhere Message-ID: <87v9dta3i8.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> References: <87r1ohdadc.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <87wny9664r.fsf@tullinup.koldfront.dk> <87mtz5bljx.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <87o8jl5xbd.fsf@tullinup.koldfront.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Kk8amruGjjUSyJOVrkNOIjMZ5Kk= X-Url: http://twitter.com/ericsfraga/ List-ID: Precedence: bulk On Wednesday, 25 Nov 2020 at 15:24, Adam Sjøgren wrote: > All my nnml-groups are without server name. Interesting. I had definitely been under the impression that a server name would not be necessary for nnml groups (what does it really mean in that context anyway?) so glad to get confirmation. > But maybe it's only mixing that confuses Gnus?! Well, the error output from gnus-search is: ,---- | nnselect-run: gnus-search-run-query on | ((search-query-spec (query . test gnus search with nnml) (raw)) | (search-group-spec | (nnml: nnml:mail.pandian) | (nnml:outlook nnml+outlook:mail.aaa | nnml+outlook:mail.bbb | nnml+outlook:mail.pandian))) | | gave error (error No search engine defined for nnml:) `---- (I've reformatted for ease of reading and elided some groups etc.) So it looks like I have to define the search engine for nnml: (without server). Maybe that would fix this mixed server case. Although the problem is currently solved for me by having deleted the server-less group, it would be nice for gnus-search to have returned the results for the second group-spec above, maybe with a warning that not all groups were searched? Let's see if Eric A. picks up this thread and comments. Thanks again, eric -- Eric S Fraga via Emacs 28.0.50 & org 9.4 on Debian bullseye/sid