From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/52283 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Abrahams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Overbearing undownloaded face Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 20:12:59 -0400 Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1052093565 27579 80.91.224.249 (5 May 2003 00:12:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 00:12:45 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ding-owner+M826@lists.math.uh.edu Mon May 05 02:12:44 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19CTb1-0007AZ-00 for ; Mon, 05 May 2003 02:12:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 19CTc9-0003ET-00; Sun, 04 May 2003 19:13:53 -0500 Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com ([64.157.176.121]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 19CTc1-0003EN-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 04 May 2003 19:13:45 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 77056 invoked by alias); 5 May 2003 00:13:45 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 77051 invoked from network); 5 May 2003 00:13:45 -0000 Original-Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (207.172.4.60) by sclp3.sclp.com with SMTP; 5 May 2003 00:13:45 -0000 Original-Received: from 146-115-123-42.c3-0.smr-ubr2.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([146.115.123.42] helo=PENGUIN.boost-consulting.com) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 19CTc0-0002bb-00; Sun, 04 May 2003 20:13:44 -0400 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (Simon Josefsson's message of "Mon, 05 May 2003 01:31:07 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1001 (Gnus v5.10.1) Emacs/21.3.50 (windows-nt) Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:52283 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:52283 Simon Josefsson writes: > David Abrahams writes: > >> Simon Josefsson writes: >> >>> David Abrahams writes: >>> >>>> Simon Josefsson writes: >>>> >>>>> I sent a message asking for opinions about this a few months ago, but >>>>> now that I try to find my message, I note that it contained a screen >>>>> shot so it was probably rejected due to size. So: Opinions? >>>> >>>> I'm likin' it, though I don't exactly understand what the effect was. >>> >>> For me, it makes unread (and ticked, and ...) articles black instead >>> of a green-blue-ish (undownloadable mark) color which looks almost >>> identical to the green-blue-ish color which is used for read messages. >> >> That's what it does for me, too. What I meant was I'm not sure what >> it's doing *technically*. If moving those Sexprs down makes them >> ineffectual, can't they be eliminated? > > Ah. But it still has priority over the read mark. So if you have a > read, undownloaded, article it will be marked with the undownloaded > face instead of the read face. However, if the article is unread (or > ticked, or ...), you will see the unread (or tick, or ...) face, > instead of the undownloaded face. > > Wasn't undownloaded articles marked with a @ or % mark or something > before? Do people care about the downloadedness of articles? I > don't. I care a little. I sometimes go away from my network connection and want to take a record of some conversations with me. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com