From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/5374 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: larsi@ifi.uio.no (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Selected articles, replying vs. forwarding. Date: 29 Feb 1996 08:58:09 +0000 Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway Sender: larsi@ifi.uio.no Message-ID: References: <199602282011.PAA00544@thuban.gsfc.nasa.gov> <199602282051.PAA06403@panix3.panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035145987 32603 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:33:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:33:07 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA05153 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 01:44:22 -0800 Original-Received: from eistla.ifi.uio.no (4867@eistla.ifi.uio.no [129.240.94.29]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 09:58:12 +0100 Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by eistla.ifi.uio.no ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 09:58:10 +0100 Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no In-Reply-To: Steve Baumgarten's message of Wed, 28 Feb 1996 15:51:02 -0500 (EST) Original-Lines: 25 In-Reply-To: Steve Baumgarten's message of Wed, 28 Feb 1996 15:51:02 -0500 (EST) Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:5374 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:5374 Steve Baumgarten writes: > Since we're on the topic, one or two things about digests that have > been bugging me: > > o 'C-c C-f' doesn't create a "real" digest, i.e., an rfc1153- or > rfc934-compliant digest. No, it creates an rfc(mumble)-compliant "forward" message. (I think the name of the rfc had something to do with "Message Encapsulation", but that may very well be totally wrong.) > o 'S O m' does (it creates an good-looking rfc1153-compliant > digest, complete with a "Topics:" summary section at the top), > but it also digestifies all articles in a thread, which more > often than not is not what I want. > > It would be wonderful to have 'S O m' just work on either the current > article or the marked articles, as most other summary commands do. If you mark a few articles I think you'll find that `S O m' just works on the marked articles. September 0.47 will use normal process/prefix conventions even when no articles are process marked. -- "Yes. The journey through the human heart would have to wait until some other time."