Selected articles, replying vs. forwarding.

Selected articles, replying vs. forwarding.

[Andy Eskilsson]

When selecting a bunch of articles with '#', all of them are included
when doing a 'R' (reply-yank or what it is named) But when wanting to
forward the articles with C-c C-f I only get the article that 'I
am standing on'

This feels a bin inconsistent, or maybe I just should learn how to do
digests? 

	/andy

-- 
 Don't walk in front of me, I might be unable to follow you.
 Don't walk after me, I might be unable to lead you.
 Just walk by my side and be my friend.

Re: Selected articles, replying vs. forwarding.

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Andy Eskilsson <mpt95aes@pt.hk-r.se> writes:

> When selecting a bunch of articles with '#', all of them are included
> when doing a 'R' (reply-yank or what it is named) But when wanting to
> forward the articles with C-c C-f I only get the article that 'I
> am standing on'

Well, there is no standard for how to forward several articles in one
mail, so doing so would be awkward.  (The same goes for following
up/replying, but not in the same degree.)

> This feels a bin inconsistent, or maybe I just should learn how to do
> digests? 

Not that hard:  `S O m'.

-- 
  "Yes.  The journey through the human heart 
     would have to wait until some other time."

Selected articles, replying vs. enter-digest-group'ing

[Greg Stark]

It would be really cool if enter-digest-group respected the process mark.
This would involve adding features to nndoc, but would be great with those
multi-part FAQs and digests like Risks that have threads that span multiple
digests.  

greg

Re: Selected articles, replying vs. forwarding.

[Edward J. Sabol]

Excerpts from mail: (28-Feb-96) Re: Selected articles, replying vs. forwarding. by Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
>>>>>>>>  "Andy" == Andy Eskilsson <mpt95aes@pt.hk-r.se> writes:
Andy> When selecting a bunch of articles with '#', all of them are included when
Andy> doing a 'R' (reply-yank or what it is named) But when wanting to forward
Andy> the articles with C-c C-f I only get the article that 'I am standing on'

>>>>>>>>  "Larse" == Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:
Lars> Well, there is no standard for how to forward several articles in one
Lars> mail, so doing so would be awkward. (The same goes for following
Lars> up/replying, but not in the same degree.)

Andy> This feels a bin inconsistent, or maybe I just should learn how to do
Andy> digests?

Lars>  Not that hard: `S O m'.

Why not just make `C-c C-f' an alias for `S O m' when mutiple articles have
been marked?

Re: Selected articles, replying vs. forwarding.

[Steve Baumgarten]

Edward J. Sabol writes:

   Lars>  Not that hard: `S O m'.
   
   Why not just make `C-c C-f' an alias for `S O m' when mutiple
   articles have been marked?

Since we're on the topic, one or two things about digests that have
been bugging me:

   o 'C-c C-f' doesn't create a "real" digest, i.e., an rfc1153- or
     rfc934-compliant digest.

   o 'S O m' does (it creates an good-looking rfc1153-compliant
     digest, complete with a "Topics:" summary section at the top),
     but it also digestifies all articles in a thread, which more
     often than not is not what I want.

It would be wonderful to have 'S O m' just work on either the current
article or the marked articles, as most other summary commands do.

(This is with September Gnus 0.41 and is also true for 5.0.13.)

Steve Baumgarten
sbb@panix.com

Re: Selected articles, replying vs. enter-digest-group'ing

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

gsstark@MIT.EDU (Greg Stark) writes:

> It would be really cool if enter-digest-group respected the process mark.
> This would involve adding features to nndoc, but would be great with those
> multi-part FAQs and digests like Risks that have threads that span multiple
> digests.  

This is basically the "nnmultidoc" backend that I've been mulling over
for, uhm, years.

But perhaps one could just use virtual groups instead?  Each digest is
opened as a nndoc group, and then an nnvirtual group is created using
these nndoc groups are component groups?  That should work.

I've now added this to the Red Gnus todo list.

-- 
  "Yes.  The journey through the human heart 
     would have to wait until some other time."

Re: Selected articles, replying vs. forwarding.

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

"Edward J. Sabol" <sabol@thuban.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:

> Why not just make `C-c C-f' an alias for `S O m' when mutiple articles have
> been marked?

That would be confusing.  We have `S o m', `S O m', `S o p', and `S O p'. 
`C-c C-f' is an alias for `S o m'.

-- 
  "Yes.  The journey through the human heart 
     would have to wait until some other time."

Re: Selected articles, replying vs. forwarding.

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Steve Baumgarten <sbb@panix.com> writes:

> Since we're on the topic, one or two things about digests that have
> been bugging me:
> 
>    o 'C-c C-f' doesn't create a "real" digest, i.e., an rfc1153- or
>      rfc934-compliant digest.

No, it creates an rfc(mumble)-compliant "forward" message.  (I think
the name of the rfc had something to do with "Message Encapsulation",
but that may very well be totally wrong.)

>    o 'S O m' does (it creates an good-looking rfc1153-compliant
>      digest, complete with a "Topics:" summary section at the top),
>      but it also digestifies all articles in a thread, which more
>      often than not is not what I want.
> 
> It would be wonderful to have 'S O m' just work on either the current
> article or the marked articles, as most other summary commands do.

If you mark a few articles I think you'll find that `S O m' just works
on the marked articles.  September 0.47 will use normal process/prefix
conventions even when no articles are process marked.

-- 
  "Yes.  The journey through the human heart 
     would have to wait until some other time."

enter-digest-group'ing

[Jack Vinson]

Why can't mail digests be broken into their component articles and then
treated as such?  RMail has a feature that splits the digest into
individual messages and wipes the digest.  For mailing list, this seems
like it would be the best way to go.  It would let us refer to an article
directly and possibly see how it fits into a thread.

-- 
Jack Vinson                       jvinson@cheux.ecs.umass.edu
"I wish I were spatial, but I'm a plane." - Radiohead (sorta)

Re: enter-digest-group'ing

[Joe Hildebrand]

> "Jack" == Jack Vinson <jvinson@cheux.ecs.umass.edu> writes:

   Jack> Why can't mail digests be broken into their component
   Jack> articles and then treated as such?  RMail has a feature that
   Jack> splits the digest into individual messages and wipes the
   Jack> digest.  For mailing list, this seems like it would be the
   Jack> best way to go.  It would let us refer to an article directly
   Jack> and possibly see how it fits into a thread.

cool.  make it also work in nntp groups, putting the exploded articles
into the cache.  that way, reading comp.risks would be a lot threadier.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand                  Fuentez Systems Concepts
hildjj@fuentez.com              11781 Lee-Jackson Hwy, Suite 700
Lead Software Engineer          Fairfax, VA 22033
	"Breakfast recapitulates phylogeny" - Spider Robinson

Re: enter-digest-group'ing

[Per Abrahamsen]

>>>>> "JV" == Jack Vinson <jvinson@cheux.ecs.umass.edu> writes:

JV> Why can't mail digests be broken into their component articles and then
JV> treated as such?  RMail has a feature that splits the digest into
JV> individual messages and wipes the digest.  For mailing list, this seems
JV> like it would be the best way to go.  It would let us refer to an article
JV> directly and possibly see how it fits into a thread.

You can do this with the following three commands:

	C-d		split into digest
	M p a		mark all articles
	B c group RET	copy digested articles to `group'

It would be convenient with a function that would do this
automatically, especially if you could put such a function in the kill
file for digested groups like `comp.risk'.

E.g. comp.risk.KILL: 

	(gnus-split "nnml:comp.risk.undigestified")
	(gnus-expunge "U")