From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/26522 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bjorn Danielsson Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Sensible nnmail-split-fancy filters Date: 09 Nov 1999 18:26:08 +0100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <871za0vltb.fsf@main.wgaf.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035163715 19854 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 01:28:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:28:35 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from lisa.math.uh.edu (lisa.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.49]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA19647 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:26:45 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by lisa.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAB00569; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:26:42 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Tue, 09 Nov 1999 11:26:57 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02768 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:26:44 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from urquell.pilsnet.sunet.se (urquell.pilsnet.sunet.se [192.36.125.77]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA19640 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:26:12 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from bd@localhost) by urquell.pilsnet.sunet.se (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA08525; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:26:08 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from bd) Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Arcady Genkin's message of "08 Nov 1999 14:13:20 -0500" Original-Lines: 47 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070098 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.98) Emacs/20.4 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:26522 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:26522 Arcady Genkin wrote: > The problem, the way I understand it, is that when a person replies > within a mailing list with "Reply to all", I get two copies of the > message. Then gnus deletes one of them, because they are duplicates, > and keeps the first one to arrive. Which in most cases would be the > one sent to me directly. > > To avoid that, I use something like this: > ,----- > | ("delivered-to\\|cc" "freebsd-questions" "mail.FreeBSD-Questions") > | (any "owner-rhua@FootPrints.net" "mail.RHUA") > | ;; *lots* of other stuff, and in the end: > | (to "\\(genkin\\|agenkin\\)@\\(sympatico\\|utoronto\\|home\\|canada\\)\\.c\\(a\\|om\\)" > | "mail.Private") > `----- > > I believe such usage is not awfully efficient, and often I have to > wait longer than I would like to for the mail to be sorted. Also, the > first kind of setup works only in some cases (i.e. won't work if > mailing lists's address would be in To: header. And "any" seems the > least efficient. > > So, are there any tricks you guys use? Just wondering... I don't use Gnus mail splitting at all. I use procmail to sort stuff into various mailbox spool files, and then in Emacs I setq mail-sources to point at the procmail spool directory. My .procmailrc file is structured in a similar way to your example above, but the advantage (IMHO) is that when I start Gnus it picks up the mail very fast since it's already sorted by procmail. This also lets me run xbuffy to monitor the spool files in the background while I am doing actual work in some other window, which is something that happens all too often :-) I just recently switched to pGnus for handling my mail after having used Mew for two years (and before that mh-e, and before that RMAIL), so I was already habituated to getting a quick response when I "unspool" my new mail, and I wanted to keep it that way... > Also, is there a nice tutorial for emacs's regexp's? Not that I am aware of. I assume you have looked at the "Regexps" node in the Emacs section of the info tree? Some good examples of how to use regexps can be found in Perl books, although they are not 100% identical to the Emacs regexps. -- Björn Danielsson KTHNOC