From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/72847 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Riley Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: splitting working now : some issues/questions Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:17:25 +0200 Organization: aich tea tea pea dicky riley dot net Message-ID: References: <9i4ocwyc69.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> <87wrpstwvz.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8uy6a67ugj.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> <87sk0ek21m.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87eibyjuyq.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1286705900 21415 80.91.229.12 (10 Oct 2010 10:18:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:18:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org To: Ted Zlatanov Original-X-From: ding-owner+M21219@lists.math.uh.edu Sun Oct 10 12:18:19 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 1P4syw-0004iH-CK for ding-account@gmane.org; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:18:18 +0200 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 1P4syF-0001sQ-IM; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 05:17:35 -0500 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 1P4syC-0001sB-L5 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 05:17:32 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P4syA-0002Eu-RU for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 05:17:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1P4syA-0005wz-00 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:17:30 +0200 Original-Received: by bwz14 with SMTP id 14so757968bwz.17 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 03:17:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:subject :organization:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; bh=c0Wb/6OzP+WwR76udt4Rc3zEkduq4AEmQJPthnpyBhY=; b=r/kRbWkoQF1RkkB8RRsJiaxg2NscfkPgjenaz5wBe1tEWVe1JR/0SdAK7nYVXW0RQH wmjIoYg+iIFt+RxT1ujjFufB38//EZbKzvbGRM1Lz4YZypFEaU9BLZztwsjP/poZAUBs IuIOw7AJ7mWwUC3/iJGqELsF8POoddbtLxqM8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:subject:organization:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=Z2jgIUKgIKxmrn8/AX8rrCBnHQycM08jvp6YMATVst7LvmsqKUd63TIOQqYoQ+d/G3 N4Qn3wujG1s48Qqef+CqfSrfNnW9MDz2Uklg4+rtIh9KmDzcn9cRtNY6r14eiJioLmh9 cCN0V49xNzanwCo4fP9hctoyCONLSC6Zc/J3s= Original-Received: by 10.204.112.193 with SMTP id x1mr3237888bkp.31.1286705848670; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 03:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost ([85.183.18.158]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o12sm3254910bkb.21.2010.10.10.03.17.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 10 Oct 2010 03:17:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87eibyjuyq.fsf@lifelogs.com> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Sun, 10 Oct 2010 03:46:53 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:72847 Archived-At: Ted Zlatanov writes: > On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 08:57:34 +0200 Richard Riley wrote: > > RR> Ted Zlatanov writes: >>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 03:09:55 +0200 Richard Riley > wrote: >>> > RR> Could (or should) the group parameter spam destination please default to > RR> the groups server? Currently if I set the spam dest as an unqualified > RR> Gnus-Spam for my nnimap server then its going to nnml:Gnus-Spam. I need > RR> to currently fully qualify it to e.g nnimap+riley:Gnus-Spam. >>> >>> I think it should behave like a regular group name, which is the >>> behaviour you're noting. > > RR> I am wondering why this would be better since unqualified is more > RR> "local" and is the way for things like spam-split and spam-inbox. If > RR> working on a group that belongs to a server it seems logical that merely > RR> setting a group destination without fully qualifier such as > RR> "nnimap+riles" means on that current group's server on not on some other > RR> such as nnml which may, or may not, be random depending on select order. > > For spam-split and general splitting, actually I have wanted for a long > time the group name to be qualified, but currently splitting only works > to the same server. To keep with the Gnus conventions, I'd prefer to > keep group names qualified whenever poassible. > > Ted > Yes, but why? If you are working a group in a certain server and something operates on that server, unqualified makes a lot more sense and is simply more convenient keeping in mind the manual talking about not qualifying in other such settings. "spam" means "spam" folder on this server, "nnml+otherserver:spam" means something else.