Re: can gnus-unread-mark be a ham mark?

[Bill White <billw@wolfram.com>]

On Fri Oct 31 2003 at 11:35, Jake Colman <colman@ppllc.com> said:

>>>>>> "BW" == Bill White <billw@wolfram.com> writes:
>
>    BW> On Fri Oct 31 2003 at 10:47, Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> said:
>    >> That way, I go into my spam group, mark ham with `!', and just exit
>    >> the group.  
>
>    BW> [...]
>
>    >> The ham-marked articles, namely the ticked ones, get moved to "mail"
>    >> and *unmarked* (this is the part I think you want), so they look
>    >> fresh and new.  I don't use a ham-exit-processor on them currently.
>
>    BW> Excellent - this is working for me now, and ticked makes even more
>    BW> sense to me than unmarked.  Thanks!
>
> You could also have used the gnus-del-mark ('r') for the same thing,
> right?

Yes, that would work too, since gnus-del-mark is one of the default
ham marks.  It doesn't fit into the way I think about ham in a spam
group, though - I like to do something to "rescue" the ham message,
then later start a different process that begins with reading the
message in the group where it belongs.  Starting the
reaading-thinking-replying process with the message still in a spam
group disturbs me somehow.  Ain't it amazing that gnus can be
customized to this extent?

Cheers -

bw
-- 
Bill White . billw@wolfram.com . http://members.wri.com/billw
"No ma'am, we're musicians."