From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/5582 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: larsi@ifi.uio.no (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: performance respooling articles in nnmbox or nnbabyl Date: 18 Mar 1996 23:10:40 +0100 Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway Sender: larsi@ifi.uio.no Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146165 785 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:36:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:36:05 +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 OAA14110 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 14:43:01 -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 ; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 23:10:41 +0100 Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by eistla.ifi.uio.no ; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 23:10:40 +0100 Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no In-Reply-To: gsstark@mit.edu's message of 18 Mar 1996 12:40:26 -0500 Original-Lines: 14 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:5582 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:5582 gsstark@mit.edu (Greg Stark) writes: > I agree, that's why i think there are two different operations being > considered here. There are times when losing existing information > and treating marked articles as completely new articles is intended; > but when i add a new split method i want a little effect as > possible, so i don't want the unaffected articles moved, and i don't > want information about the moved articles lost. Ok, I've added this to the Red Gnus todo list. -- "Yes. The journey through the human heart would have to wait until some other time."