From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/20092 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hrvoje Niksic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Marking as already read when using gcc-self? Date: 05 Jan 1999 13:44:29 +0100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <8690fj75et.fsf@slowfox.cs.uni-dortmund.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035158438 15838 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 00:00:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 00:00:38 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from karazm.math.uh.edu (karazm.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.1]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA17867 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 07:47:37 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by karazm.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAB20263; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 06:47:21 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Tue, 05 Jan 1999 06:45:14 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA20592 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 06:45:05 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA12153 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 07:44:52 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from hniksic@localhost) by jagor.srce.hr (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA13455; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:44:29 +0100 (MET) Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Attribution: Hrvoje X-Face: &{dT~)Pu6V<0y?>3p$;@vh\`C7xB~A0T-J%Og)J,@-1%q6Q+, gs<-9M#&`I8cJp2b1{vPE|~+JE+gx;a7%BG{}nY^ehK1"q#rG O,Rn1A_Cy%t]V=Brv7h writes: > I would rather see the action while _incorporating_ the mail and not > when entering the summary mode. Advantage: mail doesn't show up as > new mail at all in the group buffer and you don't have to go thru > the groups to catch-up (even if it is auto-catch-up in this case). I agree. Adding an "action" header to be processed later looks like the wrong approach to me.