From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/9205
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: discussion: marking old articles
Date: 13 Dec 1996 09:20:54 +0100
Organization: The Church of Emacs
Sender: abraham@dina.kvl.dk
Message-ID: <rj20cu3leh.fsf@babbage.dina.kvl.dk>
References: <qk2d8weopo0.fsf@iptsun2.unil.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035149265 17058 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:27:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:27:45 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <ding-request@ifi.uio.no>
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2])
          by deanna.miranova.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id AAA05736 for <steve@miranova.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 00:55:40 -0800
Original-Received: from elc1.dina.kvl.dk (elc1.dina.kvl.dk [130.225.40.228]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <JAA10316@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:29:38 +0100
Original-Received: from babbage.dina.kvl.dk (babbage.dina.kvl.dk [130.225.40.217]) by elc1.dina.kvl.dk (8.6.12/8.6.4) with ESMTP id JAA03489; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:21:31 +0100
Original-Received: (abraham@localhost) by babbage.dina.kvl.dk (8.6.12/8.6.4) id JAA16097; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:20:54 +0100
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
X-Face: +kRV2]2q}lixHkE{U)mY#+6]{AH=yN~S9@IFiOa@X6?GM<U{B+4e{k79.Ya{~':DblFPCg$
 @60,BfLv2@SKZ19cMWK0/C'v;tM:|6B'R}U1rp6CL&kN({9<zF/V{:JCg27yC)9oZjeqcQawzKfiNL
 t9}`vjmK["dRQC/qGFQq"%u|Q`:6{"Rz}b(dnl_"3$Jtqimi>|8MBp/
In-Reply-To: Wesley.Hardaker@sphys.unil.ch's message of 13 Dec 1996 08:43:11 +0100
Original-Lines: 8
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.74/Emacs 19.34
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9205
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9205


Wesley.Hardaker@sphys.unil.ch writes:

> However, it also marks them as 'R'ead which means
> they will be scored again, unlike the 'O' articles... 

Do you mean adapted?  I think if an article is so interesting that you
read it multiple times, it _deserves_ to be counted twice.