From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/72820 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Riley Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Restricting frequency of 'g' Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:50:29 +0200 Organization: aich tea tea pea dicky riley dot net Message-ID: References: <87zls71wod.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200804080355.m383tJe9029473@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <200804090649.m396nesX018860@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1286639442 10973 80.91.229.12 (9 Oct 2010 15:50:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 15:50:42 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M21192@lists.math.uh.edu Sat Oct 09 17:50:41 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P4bh3-0005NT-0z for ding-account@gmane.org; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:50:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1P4bh1-0005DP-W2; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:50:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1P4bh0-0005D4-HK for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:50:38 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P4bgw-0005C9-ES for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:50:38 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1P4bgv-0000Oe-00 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:50:33 +0200 Original-Received: by bwz14 with SMTP id 14so357377bwz.17 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 08:50:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:organization :references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version :content-type; bh=JrgywBZItDkfPWjZrOrPhkDyhGQ+vL/Yxs2dD8arSfw=; b=BKG6L/5XIBhp0H4pCoIbUTsWOsKtkNioy3JaDoUQGlR/cfYGBlU1l859/g/bqANobD B68R9Nyr7bx7xHMoBHvcWujTSQIn8oQ1lHNZMO4zt9DngYQa78ffynwmF0RKlCLRxRg8 92B5RSGrnvoinqse/OdXu6T0CIrhFvGYNcnRY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:organization:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=mZE+FyDMCsOYxukSXHEWudWDRPwVXVnL13kQ1QhAtDHRNghGLk/AFSaRVM2X8BRnIq xdDbK/nBNAKVKWyrH4C9qsJwivzYh5sUAHehlbXRjfsnC6BCgLqJwnQFNqyYeSpafOwH 2B88oBlGd356xtlafoILNWB/Vyd5P7cJFHG28= Original-Received: by 10.204.121.132 with SMTP id h4mr3288141bkr.68.1286639433072; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 08:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost ([85.183.18.158]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x13sm3724962bki.12.2010.10.09.08.50.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 09 Oct 2010 08:50:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of "Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:36:31 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:72820 Archived-At: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: > "Jason L Tibbitts III" writes: > >> Actually I've been looking for something like that for quite some time. >> For most of my reading, there's really no point in bothering to visit a >> high-traffic group until it has a quantity of articles in it. > > Yes, I can see attraction of something like that. Russ' implementation > is based on scanning frequency, while the Mark Plaksin's is based more > on the number of articles in the group, and Ted's is based on not > showing the details of how many articles there are unread. > > So we seem to have at least three different approaches to the same > idea. It could be that this is the sort of thing that's difficult to > provide, but requires that people just write their own variations to fit > their own needs. Hmm. Interesting take. With three different versions already in existence it would suggest its not that difficult to provide, but more difficult to choose a "best fit" solution.