From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/82161 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Magnus Henoch Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: nnmaildir vs offlineimap: patch to use flags properly Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:55:36 +0100 Message-ID: References: <871uitbqfr.fsf@toke.dk> <87zk5gd0pb.fsf@toke.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1346145499 1569 80.91.229.3 (28 Aug 2012 09:18:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:18:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org To: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= Original-X-From: ding-owner+M30430@lists.math.uh.edu Tue Aug 28 11:18:20 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T6HwA-00051P-8R for ding-account@gmane.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:18:18 +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 1T6Hur-0000xe-4Z; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 04:16:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1T6Huo-0000xP-OR for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 04:16:54 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1T6Hun-00018W-En for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 04:16:54 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T6Hum-0002Sw-0J for ding@gnus.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:16:52 +0200 Original-Received: by wibhn17 with SMTP id hn17so3170548wib.5 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 02:16:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date:message-id:references :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bWJzJvA2/0YEs2yHkMxJRo3UGIugbnD0lgjXe06mV3M=; b=XXKeHUaynQ2MCBubQ4hdy2oy+SSb13lVhqGYJP4rqloX1jRwPH4JvUE/89fj6gcXtX /hzZd1su5ppKyzlwbs7j/Dhm506N1SrFd7e7MvpmDEWEwoHvIxi8i46RcKer2cNnxSCq BTfK1vw+VwuC26x8YOehkPk4N9FSkHLc7GmxEC7GH6ZExYxuv4Rx+/jWJWkLKvXXxi3O ldnUW0GX+RzZtKtxQEJQ3TyV9j5KhfBAyOcvsUTlBP4uvPgnnet3W/A6Wpn/PlyUC/Zj 4v27Vx2kxpr/VacdbyiylKWzaRygX7I7zB9ctSIQn6hC3SlxLnhgSdr6vcxuCQ7R9dkj VdJw== Original-Received: by 10.217.2.146 with SMTP id p18mr1027524wes.198.1346145406598; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 02:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from poki-sona.local (5adfcbc1.bb.sky.com. [90.223.203.193]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id el6sm3935880wib.8.2012.08.28.02.16.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 28 Aug 2012 02:16:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87zk5gd0pb.fsf@toke.dk> ("Toke \=\?utf-8\?Q\?H\=C3\=B8iland-J\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?\=C3\=B8rgensen\=22's\?\= message of "Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:38:24 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.130006 (Ma Gnus v0.6) Emacs/24.1.50 (darwin) X-Spam-Score: -3.0 (---) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:82161 Archived-At: Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen writes: > Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen writes: > >> I'll keep using this for a few days and see if anything odd turns up. > > Following up on this, it seems gnus seemed to delete all expired > messages in my inbox, instead of only those older than seven days as > it's supposed to. I don't know whether this is related to your patch, > but thought I'd mention it... Right, nnmaildir uses the modtime of the article file to decide its age, just like nnml does, but unlike nnml, the function `nnmaildir-request-expire-articles' contains its own logic to decide whether the article is expirable instead of calling `nnmail-expired-article-p'. Not sure if that would make a difference, but that's definitely duplication worth getting rid of. I can't reproduce the problem myself; I marked an article a few days old as expirable and exited the group, but it wasn't expired immediately. Regards, Magnus