Re: scoring

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>]

Brian May <bmay@csse.monash.edu.au> writes:

>           ("xref" ("[^:\n]+:[0-9]+ +[^:\n]+:[0-9]+ +[^:\n]+:[0-9]+" -1000 nil r))
> 
> However, this doesn't work, instead I have to use:
> 
>           ("xref" ("[^:]+:[0-9]+ +[^:]+:[0-9]+ +[^:]+:[0-9]+" -1000 nil r))
> 
> Which really puzzles me, as PGnus doesn't display any newlines
> within the Xref line. Is that notation a legal R.E.? Or perhaps
> PGnus removes newlines within the Xref line before displaying it?

The newline bits are in there to avoid having the score code go to
multi-line matching, which it will do, giving spurious results and
stuff. 

> (My guess is that the example is wrong, and PGnus interprets "\"
> and "n" as two distinct characters, within [ and ] --- am I correct?

No, Gnus reads the score files with `read', which will do the right
thing. 

So I don't understand this.  The [^:\n]+ should work while the [^:]+
should match articles where there aren't that many Xref headers.

> Another thing, while scoring based on the "Message-Id" works, scoring
> based on "thread" doesn't work (nothing matches). This has me rather
> puzzled, because I thought matching on thread is the same thing as
> matching on the "Message-Id", but with followups included, too.

Scoring on threads create lots of ADAPT files that it later uses when
scoring.  It seems to work for me...

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen