Re: Keeping cached (*) mail articles in the backend. Bad idea?

[Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE]

Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> writes:

> When using total expire, which I'm playing with in some groups right
> now, there are some cases where I'd like to use caching to keep a
> particular article around indefinitely.  This gives me the one extra
> non-expirable article state I'd like to have (i.e. read and cached).

Hm.  You can mark the article dormant (?) or ticked (!) -- both of
these won't be expired.

If you need one more article state than allowed by total-expire, I
suggest that you use auto-expire instead.

With total expire, you have:

  - unmarked            SPC
  - ticked              !
  - dormant             ?
  - read = expirable    R / O

Only read/expirable articles will ever be deleted.

With total-expire off (possibly auto-expire on), you have:

  - unmarked            SPC
  - ticked              !
  - dormant             ?
  - read                R / O
  - expirable           E

Only expirable articles will ever be deleted.

Do you need more marks than this?  I think user-defined labels are
still on the todo list (and have been there for a long time).

kai
-- 
Life is hard and then you die.