annotations via Gcc

annotations via Gcc

[Paul Jarc]

I think Kai's annotations via nnchoke-request-post could also be done
via Gcc, if messages were only required to have at least one of
mail recipients, Newsgroups:, or Gcc.  This way, annotations wouldn't
require special support from backends.  Then maybe it would be useful
to have a summary-mode key binding to a function that starts a message
with no recipients, but a Gcc to the current group.  Or maybe the
existing function could detect when the current group's backend has no
-request-post function but has -request-accept-article, and if so, it
would set up a message that way.  I'm not so sure that would be a good
idea, though.


paul

Re: annotations via Gcc

[Kai Großjohann]

prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:

> I think Kai's annotations via nnchoke-request-post could also be done
> via Gcc, if messages were only required to have at least one of
> mail recipients, Newsgroups:, or Gcc.

Hm.  Of course, you're right.  It seemed to me that it is cleaner to
use the Newsgroups header, but I wasn't sure why.  Of course, the fact
that Gnus complains about missing To/Cc/Newsgroups headers is not a
real reason.  Hm.

Thoughts?  Should I revert the Newsgroups patch from nnml?

But on the other hand, adding Newsgroups support to all backends is
really simple and can be done in cookbook style.

kai
-- 
Linux provides a nice `poweroff' command, but where is `poweron'?

Re: annotations via Gcc

[Paul Jarc]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) wrote:
> Thoughts?  Should I revert the Newsgroups patch from nnml?

I don't think it hurts to leave that code there.  Some nnml users have
probably gotten used to it by now.

> But on the other hand, adding Newsgroups support to all backends is
> really simple and can be done in cookbook style.

True, but would it be much more difficult to change the check for
message recipients?  It feels like we ought to do that anyway, on
principle. :)


paul

Re: annotations via Gcc

[Kai Großjohann]

prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:

> Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) wrote:
> 
>> But on the other hand, adding Newsgroups support to all backends is
>> really simple and can be done in cookbook style.
> 
> True, but would it be much more difficult to change the check for
> message recipients?  It feels like we ought to do that anyway, on
> principle. :)

I think that GNKSA requires a check for non-empty To/Cc/Newsgroups.
Anyone? 

kai
-- 
Linux provides a nice `poweroff' command, but where is `poweron'?

Re: annotations via Gcc

[Paul Jarc]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) wrote:
> prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:
>> True, but would it be much more difficult to change the check for
>> message recipients?  It feels like we ought to do that anyway, on
>> principle. :)
>
> I think that GNKSA requires a check for non-empty To/Cc/Newsgroups.
> Anyone? 

Not AFAICT, going by <URL:http://www.newsreaders.com/gnksa/gnksa.txt>.
But even if so, this would be a case of Gnus stepping outside the
realm of the GNKSA's applicability.

Gnus should check that the message will end up *somewhere* (or at
least, that it will be sent somewhere; it might, of course, be dropped
further down the line): a mail recipient, a newsgroup, Gcc, Fcc,
whatever.  When one of the destinations is a newsgroup, then the GNKSA
should be respected, but Gnus's scope is larger than the GNKSA's.


paul