From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/37935 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: `new' indicator for nnimap groups? Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:28:17 +0200 Organization: Programmerer Ingebrigtsen Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035173600 18159 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 04:13:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:13:20 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 7681 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2001 21:28:41 -0000 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org (195.204.10.139) by gnus.org with SMTP; 17 Aug 2001 21:28:41 -0000 Original-Received: (from news@localhost) by quimby.gnus.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04235 for ding@gnus.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:28:28 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Path: not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnus.ding Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: quimbies.gnus.org Original-X-Trace: quimby.gnus.org 998083707 21593 195.204.10.148 (17 Aug 2001 21:28:27 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby.gnus.org Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Aug 2001 21:28:27 GMT Mail-Copies-To: never X-Now-Playing: Loren MazzaCane Connors's _Calloden Harvest_: "Premonition" User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/20.7 X-Face: &w!^oO~dS|}-P0~ge{$c!h\ writes: > I had a slightly different idea -- have the nnmail splitter add the > `recent' flags. The splitter knows what articles are newly added to > the group. But it wouldn't work for nntp groups. Mm. Or nnslashdot groups. > But yes, I like your idea. I presume the `(seen (300 . 400))' would > be a group parameter? It would be in the marks list, I think. > (Only thing I don't like is that it increases the amount of state > stored in .newsrc.eld. That's basicly why I had the nnmail splitter > idea.) Well, since this seems to be a concern many people has, perhaps doing a general fork-out of these bits of data into other files would be a good idea. (It's been suggested.) However, I don't really see storing many bits of data in many files as much of an improvement. Sure, when you hose one file, you don't lose the data in the other files, but now you have many more hoseable files, so you can lose bits of data at the same general rate, but less drastically. :-) -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen