From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/72925 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Riley Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: splitting working now : some issues/questions Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:55:54 +0200 Organization: aich tea tea pea dicky riley dot net Message-ID: References: <9i4ocwyc69.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> <87wrpstwvz.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8uy6a67ugj.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> <87sk0ek21m.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87eibyjuyq.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8762xajdh0.fsf@lifelogs.com> <877hhoalzh.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1286805375 4924 80.91.229.12 (11 Oct 2010 13:56:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:56:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org To: Ted Zlatanov Original-X-From: ding-owner+M21297@lists.math.uh.edu Mon Oct 11 15:56:14 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 1P5IrL-0005Hx-LL for ding-account@gmane.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:56:12 +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 1P5IrD-0001tF-OX; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:56:03 -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 1P5IrC-0001sy-4g for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:56:02 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P5IrB-00041Z-0V for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:56:02 -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 1P5IrA-0001tR-00 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:56:00 +0200 Original-Received: by bwz14 with SMTP id 14so1610565bwz.17 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 06:55:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:subject :organization:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; bh=7OecUOPNFYOCDBrJy2TNjSJ19I4wC23zcJk47obpxv4=; b=IwEBymC2mtqQ/j/TYxQf1rmMyvbGUBMowKcdrxobQ8VeVWCnpOdMmvrJvXxr4nO6jN EEO6sOeMpzkptk2vTC5W1btIE6bbGg8PZD5YP4rgeVnTu1UhYG9Xr/b6GYgLGtPchrrK 6IWAMaTEyWrbwpBl2B/qsA6hKXdOkwmzmOZU0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:subject:organization:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=FsBxSu9eVqTC5t5xg3rZKlLDAIGCGO23ukbolh6179lYFO38qCxLkqVVpOxNgpGG5a V2pUt/j8PxO3U6Z4BI4jvLTTGMK3MKzZJt/FqARhyECvml9zjLPxi2Zf26LL2ibGw3fH XpauzxeWoKGEDG6ZO3DHzj6vat+G+QseQ1wUM= Original-Received: by 10.204.131.209 with SMTP id y17mr4580968bks.32.1286805357807; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 06:55:57 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost ([85.183.18.158]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g8sm798415bkg.11.2010.10.11.06.55.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 06:55:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <877hhoalzh.fsf@lifelogs.com> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:37:54 -0500") 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:72925 Archived-At: Ted Zlatanov writes: > On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:28:10 +0200 Richard Riley wrote: > >>> 1) to keep Gnus consistent > > RR> Thats my whole point : Its not consistent. Some places need it > RR> qualifying others dont. And if you dont it defaults to the current > RR> server. > > Sorry, can you tell me where, besides the splitting methods, does Gnus > take an unqualified group name to mean "in the current server"? I may > very well be wrong but I don't know of such behavior. The splitting methods ... I wont argue the case anymore. it just seemed to me much more natural. It still does. But its not me changing the SW and I do appreciate the efforts Lars is going to so I wont make any more comments after this post on it. You must understand that it not doing what I expected (rightly or wrongly) caused me awful headaches with literally thousands of emails being chucked around taking hours (but as I said that was in conjunction with the bug with splitting everything). Bottom line if it was new feature : if specifying a destination folder in a group which belongs to a server then an unqualified group name for that destination group should refer to a group local to that server. It just makes sense. Want a specific OTHER server? Then qualify it. Anyway, I think thats about it really ;)