From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/35685 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai =?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann?=) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Question about mail archive Date: 08 Apr 2001 20:36:36 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035171390 4436 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:36:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:36:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Alex Schroeder , ding@gnus.org Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 6331 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2001 18:37:08 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 6326 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2001 18:37:08 -0000 Original-Received: from waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de (129.217.4.42) by gnus.org with SMTP; 8 Apr 2001 18:37:08 -0000 Original-Received: from marcy.cs.uni-dortmund.de (marcy.cs.uni-dortmund.de [129.217.20.159]) by waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de with ESMTP id UAA17818; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:36:36 +0200 (MES) Original-Received: from lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de (lucy [129.217.20.160]) by marcy.cs.uni-dortmund.de id UAA12054; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:36:36 +0200 (MET DST) Original-Received: (from grossjoh@localhost) by lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id UAA32763; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:36:36 +0200 X-Face: 6=pZ4hVbjN:C?j1$h/-bi4:F%*~B#Rxb$[0%!{5NK"dE:_QRAM]Dzl=$yMu%Rh4xCSm/#>! $n%@SHJ](KFJKL,uF\=G=bRJQC$ ?+Dlxu*pj.Z,-GK<~y7sd/l*PN\]>} In-Reply-To: ("Georg C. F. Greve"'s message of "08 Apr 2001 16:57:28 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090001 (Oort Gnus v0.01) Emacs/21.0.101 Original-Lines: 89 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:35685 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:35685 On 08 Apr 2001, Georg C. F. Greve wrote: > as> I set gnus-ignored-from-addresses in order to do that (and > as> message-dont-reply-to-names, because it's the same regexp). > > But this is for all groups, right? I just show messages from me as "-> recipient" in the summary, and I'm happy with that. I do this via setting gnus-ignored-from-addresses and (setq nnmail-extra-headers '(To Cc)) (setq gnus-extra-headers nnmail-extra-headers) And, finally, I use the %f spec in gnus-summary-line-format rather than the %n spec. I find that it's okay to always see "-> recipient" in all groups for messages authored by me, no need to restrict it to some groups. > as> Then create virtual groups -- for each pair of incoming and > as> outgoing messages of a certain type. Now you have three groups > as> for each type of message: All, only incoming or only outgoing. > as> All of them threaded, of course. > > Yeah, but this is not quite what I want. I thought about having it > in a way that I have > > - the incoming groups (split depending on all kinds of criteria) > - a sent mail archive group sorted per month (as usual) > > (this is what I have now) and > > - ONE archive group per month for processed incoming mail > > (this is what I don't know how to do properly at the moment) Hm. When a message comes in and you have processed it, do you want to move or to copy it to the archive group? Anyway, maybe a simple keybinding that you can use rather than `d' would be sufficient? A command which marks the article as read and then does gnus-summary-move-article to the right group? > >> But I have a few questions about the nnml Backend: It is better > >> suited for NFS, right? > > as> Huh? Why? > > I think I read this somewhere. It makes some sense, though, smaller > files look like a better idea to me. Hm. Any performance advantage that nnml might have will also be true for the local disk. And using nnml, you really shouldn't allow any program other than Gnus to write to ~/Mail. (In fact, nnmh is the only backend which _might_ be different in this regard, but nnmh is very slow.) Maybe nnmaildir is a good backend for NFS, since that doesn't require file locking. Hm. Any nnmaildir experts who can help? > >> If they synchronize, they should synchronize their archives and > >> their normal mail groups with all flags so I know on both > >> machines which mail I already replied to and which has been > >> dealt with. > > as> Hm, that would be harded... > > I know. This is the big still-to-be-solved problem of all MUAs. > > But nnml seems to be closer to a solution already. If just the > active and .newsrc.eld files weren't so sensitive... a smart way to > synchronize them would probably be the crucial problem to be solved. For synchronizing email across several machines, I used to sync ~/Mail, ~/News, ~/.newsrc* and ~/.nnmail-cache. It was important to take care about the direction, that's all. Using rsync, this was reasonably fast. (I had 200 or 300 MB of mail back then, and a no-op sync (when both directories were equal) took less than two minutes over a 64k ISDN line.) But this method works equally well for all backends. Just rsync the right files and directories. Another approach to syncing mail on different machines is to use an IMAP server and maybe the Agent (unplugged) facility offered by Gnus. kai -- Be indiscrete. Do it continuously.