From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/79385 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dave Abrahams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Gnus Questions #1: Article Expiry Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:28:58 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1309977031 26933 80.91.229.12 (6 Jul 2011 18:30:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 18:30:31 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M27681@lists.math.uh.edu Wed Jul 06 20:30:27 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QeWri-0000Uj-8v for ding-account@gmane.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:30:26 +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 1QeWqm-0003UU-EH; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:29:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1QeWqj-0003UF-Jr for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:29:25 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QeWqf-00010O-AX for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:29:23 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QeWqc-0003hM-EY for ding@gnus.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:29:18 +0200 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QeWqX-0008JX-61 for ding@gnus.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:29:13 +0200 Original-Received: from 207-172-223-249.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.223.249]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:29:13 +0200 Original-Received: from dave by 207-172-223-249.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:29:13 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 165 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 207-172-223-249.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/23.3 (darwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:gfOe1RIJjVNVawujr5+Q93/E7mY= X-Spam-Score: -4.9 (----) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:79385 Archived-At: Hi Lars, Let me say in advance, thanks a lot for your answers. Where I have elided text you wrote below, please assume my response is, "got it, thanks." on Tue Jul 05 2011, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: > Dave Abrahams writes: > >> * What's the difference between marking an article "expirable (E)" and >> `marking it expired' as described by [[info:gnus#Spam and Ham >> Processors]]? > > I'm not that familiar with the spam processing thing, so I'm not sure. > I mean, there is no mark for "expired articles" (i.e. deleted articles) > as far as I know. Just "expirable articles". I agree and am inclined to think we need to s/expired/expirable/ in the referenced info node. I'll put that in my patch. >> * [[info:gnus#Expiring Mail]] and [[info:gnus#Group Parameters]] both >> mention articles being `put through the expiry process,' but that >> process is never spelled out. What exactly is involved? > > It's what's described on the "Expiring Mail" node? Sorry to be a pain, but that doesn't look like a description of a process to me. It looks like a description of a bunch of settings and the effects they have, but there's nothing like "first this happens, then we do that, ..." >> * What's the difference between `gnus-summary-expire-articles' and >> `gnus-summary-expire-articles-now'? The documentation doesn't make >> that clear. > > The latter says: > > "This means that *all* articles that are marked as expirable will be > deleted forever, right now." Of course I've read that line over and over and it isn't getting clearer. As I wrote to Lee, ,---- | Yeah, I read all those words, but they didn't add up to any obvious | distinction for me. The phrases "have been around for a while" and | "eligible for expiry" are vague at best. By contrast the use of | "delete" and "disappear" seem implausibly concrete for a system whose | expiration behavior can range from "do nothing" (which is undocumented, | but that's what you get from nnimap if the expiry target is nil) to | "forward the article to my mother-in-law" (if I write the function to do | that). I would rather say that the articles are "sent to the group's | expiry target" (a phrase I'd suitably define in Expiring Mail::). `---- >> * "Total Expire" and "Auto Expire" >> >> * The main point of using "Total Expire" instead of "Auto Expire" >> seems to be that with "total expire" you can keep a distinction >> between expirable (`E') and other marks that indicate an article was >> read... until expiry actually runs. At that point, if you're using >> total expire they're all treated the same. With "auto expire," on >> the other hand, you know that only articles marked `E' will be >> put through the expiry process. > > Well, sort of. With total expire, you expire all old articles. Do you really mean "old?" The doc seems to say you expire all articles with a read mark. > If you don't use total expire, the expiration process will only > consider "E"-marked articles. > > You can "E"-mark them manually, or you can switch on auto-expire and > have Gnus set the "E" mark automatically. OK. >> * From [[info:gnus#Adaptive Scoring]] I think I conclude that adaptive >> scoring takes effect at expiry time, and "auto-expire" changes all >> read marks to `E' too early for adaptive scoring to do its work. Is >> that right? > > No. If you set the "E" mark on all articles (whether automatically or > manually), Adaptive Scoring won't be able to tell whether you're read an > article or not, so it can't do its thing. I think you mean "Yes" above. Otherwise, it's not consistent with the next sentence, which seems to confirm that my understanding was spot-on :-). Am I missing something? >> * [[info:gnus#Expiring Mail]] seems to contradict my understanding, >> though: it claims that "auto-expire" gives me "more marks to work >> with." >> >> ,---- >> | Another advantage of auto-expire is that you get more marks to work >> | with: for the articles that are supposed to stick around, you can >> | still choose between tick and dormant and read marks. But with >> | total-expire, you only have dormant and ticked to choose from >> `---- >> >> Okay, now that I read it again I think it's saying that with >> "auto-expire," if I can somehow produce a mark other than `E' for an >> article that's been read,, that article can persist even if it's >> neither dormant or ticked. That's fine as far as it goes but >> mentioning it seems almost pointless, since Gnus is going to >> automatically mark everything I read as `E'. What am I missing? > > Is it talking about adaptive scoring there? I don't think so; at that point in the text it hasn't raised adaptive scoring yet. It's in the paragraph that begins, "Which one is better, auto-expire or total-expire?" >> * Aren't there a bajillion other ways to do the following, including >> by customizing the "auto-expire" group parameter? Why would I do it >> as below (see [[info:gnus#Expiring Mail]]) instead? >> >> ,---- >> | To avoid having articles marked as read marked as >> | expirable automatically, you can put something like the following in >> | your `~/.gnus.el' file: >> | >> | (remove-hook 'gnus-mark-article-hook >> | 'gnus-summary-mark-read-and-unread-as-read) >> | (add-hook 'gnus-mark-article-hook 'gnus-summary-mark-unread-as-read) >> | >> `---- > > Yes, that seems rather excessive. Any objections if I remove that passage in my patch? >> * Suggestion: Rename `gnus-auto-expirable-newsgroups' >> `gnus-auto-expirable-groups' since, generally, auto-expire only >> applies to mail and not to nntp. > > Gnus has historically used "newsgroups" and "groups" as synonyms, and I > think that boat has sailed a long time ago. Yeah, but Emacs supports aliases. Is there any reason not to make things clearer for future generations? >> I and several of my friends have long been plagued by the symptom that >> if I delete an IMAP message in some other mail client, it still hangs >> around in Gnus. I've beat my head against >> `gnus-agent-regenerate[-group]' and `gnus-agent-flush-*' and other >> trix for years trying to correct it, but never found a reliable >> formula. Agent expiry seems to be the key. I think. Have I got that >> right? > > There have been many reports about nnimap and the Agent not playing > nice with each other. I have yet to delve into that morass. But I > will. :-) We, the morassed, are very grateful. :-) -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com