From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/86165 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eric Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: GCC to Yahoo groups fails Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 10:12:31 +0800 Message-ID: <87vbbp3980.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <87vbbqmuiv.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <874mja452e.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87a8t29py5.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1441419244 12740 80.91.229.3 (5 Sep 2015 02:14:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 02:14:04 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M34399@lists.math.uh.edu Sat Sep 05 04:13:52 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.208]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZY2zG-00072c-VW for ding-account@gmane.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2015 04:13:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZY2yI-0005eW-6c; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 21:12:50 -0500 Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZY2yF-0005e6-56 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 21:12:47 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZY2yE-0005mG-1B for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 21:12:47 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZY2yB-0002mg-N4 for ding@gnus.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2015 04:12:43 +0200 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZY2y9-0005pf-HE for ding@gnus.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2015 04:12:41 +0200 Original-Received: from 222.129.227.251 ([222.129.227.251]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 05 Sep 2015 04:12:41 +0200 Original-Received: from eric by 222.129.227.251 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 05 Sep 2015 04:12:41 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 24 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 222.129.227.251 User-Agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ldY/JaaPVWLOdfuZsEsobK9jC2E= X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin (3.4.1 2015-04-28) analysis follows Bayesian score: 0.0005 Ham tokens: 0.000-27--1234h-0s--0d--H*UA:Emacs, 0.000-27--1231h-0s--0d--H*M:fsf, 0.000-26--1215h-0s--0d--H*u:Emacs, 0.000-16--727h-0s--0d--H*u:Gnus, 0.000-16--727h-0s--0d--H*UA:Gnus Spam tokens: 0.994-10514--345h-6971s--0d--H*RU:quimby.gnus.org, 0.994-10514--345h-6971s--0d--Hx-spam-relays-external:quimby.gnus.org, 0.994-9920--334h-6582s--0d--HTo:D*gnus.org, 0.993-10435--424h-6971s--0d--H*RT:quimby.gnus.org, 0.993-10435--424h-6971s--0d--Hx-spam-relays-internal:80.91.231.51 Autolearn status: no autolearn_force=no -1.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.2 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO 0.0 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different 0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0005] 2.0 FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 No description available. List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:86165 Archived-At: Eric S Fraga writes: > On Friday, 4 Sep 2015 at 22:44, Eric Abrahamsen wrote: > > [...] > >> This looks like an error we were discussing a bit earlier, related > > Ah, I didn't follow the whole nnmairix discussion... :( No one's obliged to read all these confused threads :) >> And more fundamentally, I'm realizing, if an argument is noted as >> &optional, we should definitely treat it as optional! >> >> If there are no objections, I'll push that change in the morning. > > This sounds the way to go. No objection from me! Done, see if this fixes your problem. I also had to fiddle with the handling of the active parameter for new groups, I hope I did that right. That shouldn't directly impact your situation, though. E