From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.user/5994 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bastien Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.user Subject: Re: Position of mail in *Groups* buffer Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:25:53 +0000 Organization: Guest of ProXad - France Message-ID: <87vez1fzke.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <87mzkemwjm.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138671612 29734 80.91.229.2 (31 Jan 2006 01:40:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:40:12 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: nobody Tue Jan 17 17:36:08 2006 Original-Path: quimby.gnus.org!newsfeed.gazeta.pl!news.nask.pl!news.nask.org.pl!newsfeed.pionier.net.pl!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!newsfeed.cw.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.de!newsfeed.stueberl.de!proxad.net!infeed-3.proxad.net!nnrp6-1.free.fr!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.gnus User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:hJ2c1N4jAoU0r1fU2JgGVLmxjSU= Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: 09 Nov 2005 19:26:09 MET Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.109.110.238 Original-X-Trace: 1131560769 nnrp6-1.free.fr 7365 81.109.110.238:32918 Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Original-Xref: bridgekeeper.physik.uni-ulm.de gnus-emacs-gnus:6136 Original-Lines: 23 X-Gnus-Article-Number: 6136 Tue Jan 17 17:36:08 2006 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.user:5994 Archived-At: Reiner Steib writes: > Just little correction: > > ,----[ (info "(gnus)Group Levels") ] > | It is recommended that you keep all your mail groups (if any) on > | quite low levels (e.g. 1 or 2). > `---- Any hints about the "why" ? I don't see any justification of this in the manual. So far I've been setting mail groups at different levels - including 3 and 4 - and everything works quite well. *Except* that, from time to time, new mails are marked as old mails (it happens in very large mail groups and even with mail groups at level 1 & 2)... Could this strange behavior be related to the above recommandation? -- Bastien