From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/6738 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kai Grossjohann Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Soups and marks Date: 17 Jun 1996 16:01:07 +0200 Sender: grossjoh@dusty.informatik.uni-dortmund.de Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Kai Grossjohann NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.52) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035147151 4584 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:52:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:52:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@ifi.uio.no Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA21078 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 07:34:57 -0700 Original-Received: from floyd.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (floyd.informatik.uni-dortmund.de [129.217.4.40]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id ; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 16:01:12 +0200 Original-Received: from dusty.informatik.uni-dortmund.de by floyd.informatik.uni-dortmund.de with SMTP (Sendmail 8.7.5/UniDo 3.11) id QAA09325; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 16:01:09 +0200 (MES) Original-Received: by dusty.informatik.uni-dortmund.de id AA21171; Mon, 17 Jun 96 16:01:08 +0200 Original-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen In-Reply-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of 17 Jun 1996 04:22:32 +0200 Original-Lines: 34 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.2.17/Emacs 19.30 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6738 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6738 >>>>> Kai Grossjohann >>>>> writes: Kai> [...] When brewing a soup, Gnus by default marks all souped Kai> articles as read. [...] >>>>> On 17 Jun 1996 04:22:32 +0200, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen >>>>> said: Lars> Well, they will probably be read, so marking them as such is Lars> probably the most sensible thing. Yes. No. I argue as follows: Usually there two kinds of `read' messages: those that you want to delete and those that you want to keep. Without total-expire, the ones to delete are the `expirable' ones, the ones to keep the `read' ones. With total-expire, the ones to delete are the `read' ones whereas the ones to keep will be `ticked' or `dormant' (I suppose). In both cases you have two kinds of messages but with your process they're both marked the same way. --> Conflict. My suggestion was to mark them specially so that the user can look at them and assign the correct mark intellectually. (If you can't program it, let the user do it.) But your suggestion of taking note of the unread messages is really nice and could rather simply be adapted to save all marks, I guess. I think I'll be doing this, in fact. kai -- Life is hard and then you die.