Using TM with Red Gnus

Using TM with Red Gnus

[David Blacka]

Ok, I'm baffled.  I've been trying to use tm-7.92 with rgnus-0.53, and
when I load it, Red Gnus starts behaving very strangely in topic
mode.  Things like when I select a group, gnus somehow decides that I
selected the topic below it, and unfolds it.  Not only can I not
actually select a group, but this behavior leads to some wierd
displays...

   [comp] ...
   [comp]
     comp.foo.bar: 
     comp.baz.foo:
   [comp] ...
   [misc]

and the like.  What can I do here (beside not use tm, I'm doing that
already).

On another note, I will occasionally get what looks like article
prefetching mixups.  When I select a particlar article, I will get a
totally different article showing up in the *Article* buffer.  It is
difficult to track down when this occurs, but it seems to be happening
fairly often.

-- 
David Blacka              Software Engineer     RWhois Development Team
Network Solutions, Inc.   (703) 742-4897        davidb@rwhois.net

Re: Using TM with Red Gnus

[Steven L Baur]

>>>>> "David" == David Blacka <davidb@rwhois.net> writes:

David> Ok, I'm baffled.  I've been trying to use tm-7.92 with
David> rgnus-0.53, and when I load it, Red Gnus starts behaving very
David> strangely in topic mode.  Things like when I select a group,
David> gnus somehow decides that I selected the topic below it, and
David> unfolds it.

That sounds like a known problem.  Does adding this line to .emacs help?

(add-hook 'gnus-startup-hook 'gnus-xmas-define)

David> On another note, I will occasionally get what looks like
David> article prefetching mixups.  When I select a particlar article,
David> I will get a totally different article showing up in the
David> *Article* buffer.  It is difficult to track down when this
David> occurs, but it seems to be happening fairly often.

Haven't seen that one, but I've never enabled prefetching.
-- 
steve@miranova.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be billed at $250/message.
What are the last two letters of "doesn't" and "can't"?
Coincidence?  I think not.