From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/75237 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re-imagining Gnus as a mail reader Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:34:07 +0100 Organization: Programmerer Ingebrigtsen Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1292639807 12203 80.91.229.12 (18 Dec 2010 02:36:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 02:36:47 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M23592@lists.math.uh.edu Sat Dec 18 03:36:43 2010 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 1PTmf5-0007t4-2F for ding-account@gmane.org; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:36:43 +0100 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 1PTmct-00011Q-9U; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:34:27 -0600 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 1PTmcr-00011F-Ry for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:34:25 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTmcq-0000RR-7L for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:34:25 -0600 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTmco-0000cf-2V for ding@gnus.org; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:34:22 +0100 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PTmck-0006fp-9v for ding@gnus.org; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:34:18 +0100 Original-Received: from cm-84.215.34.171.getinternet.no ([84.215.34.171]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:34:18 +0100 Original-Received: from larsi by cm-84.215.34.171.getinternet.no with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:34:18 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Lines: 25 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cm-84.215.34.171.getinternet.no Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAKlBMVEUTQDDi5OfS1tcBFQZg lZe8z9fo6u7f4uWfwMfr7fDl5+rc3+HY293w8vT4L5ctAAACRElEQVQ4ja1UsYobMRDVL6ixiK5b MBjiLn9iWEh7jcJupzSCbMoUaa8RyHDFNjJW52LZgLYymBysfkCF/iVPWudMQlwkZCpp3r4Zzcyb JbNszEP3+Vy92vdjiv034qU9eB9uwLYAA5H9se3ZdAPmU5NSHAi3jdnTbgqw7bYK87hKKe0H4pwx uqWs834Ksx+VtM8pPb0QB2KKUbS96ym1WhzhT08XcjpmIIElHHWNMQb39OGFnDITkBbCcd48x4T7 /gCGLZ9EIYzAO1K57NmFKJvpeIAxQuCY+bHvLkTSN1dvtgJE3dOBjIry3uFRlOLkcGodU+pCaDYn gOBKnW2d45QDcBmwQjtHlRp5BlAQGwjtZUFK8SMoAkEZAOsyXTRaIzS3SN9oy9Bdjnqt0UK3h5xD aPQA2dDExixlxQOi52pji3QD+fpn+0Lu2rs79g/Af7S7dfw9sKvWVVXvqt/sPVFsGqFC7z9hDlmq J4rmQgxzUS1sZF6pKWxn5ed5WhPJPBxKSd5gqqwbJceIwVC0kxgEheo15kuhGdr5zIALQtPCJMhO FC2oLmwIplzEu1jMohTMTxsis8KjuQG6Z9g8AMKkXyw+4qFn5FhdV+Inbj5Wb0MOhdyZ9BrNTNW2 vEpBya7IPBapt+dqmwtEwMn7wnuEUgXt8q6HNclbjH5IrCWqdLQLuYfhQs7lg9nTomaFP8G6rqtq TZYuh1lyANlf1TWmcAVCBrBJ3UJYgHq3AxAU79G7xQ9gs+Tws1cr/RD8tABI/gNVqwYmbIBXDQAA AABJRU5ErkJggg== Mail-Copies-To: never X-Now-Playing: Roni Size & Reprazent's _New Forms (2)_: "Trust Me" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:QXyWPxdMVKidz3JAE7pQC3xA2zU= X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:75237 Archived-At: It's so quiet here tonight. I guess everybody is out partying. Yesterday I chased down a performance regression that turned out to be our IMAP server taking five seconds to re-index my spam group every time I APPEND something to it. It just took two hours. So naturally I just wanted to delete all the articles, but entering the group and deleting all the millions of spam messages would have taken hours, so I just wrote `M-x gnus-group-delete-articles' instead. But now I'm kinda wondering how Gnus would have looked if it had modelled itself on IMAP instead of NNTP. IMAP is (sort of) a superset of NNTP, but not quite. Perhaps the main difference is that IMAP is slightly more explicit about the trifurcation between unread/read/non-existent, while NNTP only (sort of) has "some articles exist in this range". Hm... But, I mean, also about the marks storage and subscription storage, which would perhaps be more usefully modelled around IMAP and then scaled down for other backends like NNTP. Ok, back to the cooking wine. Sent from my Emacs