Re: funny problems with nnmail-cache and split-fancy-with-parent

[prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) wrote:
> Maybe it would be useful for Gnus to define a certain standard as to
> what server names should look like.  I'm a bit confused.  Sometimes,
> it's nnml:foo, sometimes it's just foo.  People tried to explain to
> me before, but I still don't understand.  Must be a thickhead ;-)

A server has an "address", which is the "foo" part of "nnml:foo" or of
"nnml+foo:group.name".  A server may also have a "name", which is
"native" or the server's key in gnus-server-alist.  (Secondary servers
do not have "names".)  This is how the manual uses the terms "name"
and "address" - most of the time.  In common usage, "name" is often
used to refer to the "nnml:foo" string.  Sometimes the manual uses
"name" this way too.  I think the "nnml:foo" form is the more useful
identifier, since it's more informative and all servers are guaranteed
to have one.  Having an extra identifier doesn't provide any
additional functionality, and just causes confusion when the manual
calls it the "name".  I guess it would be a lot of work to get rid of
it, though.


paul