Re: What's the difference between gnus-recent-mark and gnus-unseen-mark?

[Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>]

Steven E. Harris <seharris@raytheon.com> writes:

>> This is fine (but I could agree N is a bit noicy, what
>> about using `,' instead?).
>
> The comma could be fine. As the semantic distinction is subtle (at
> least in my usage scenario), the mark distinction should be subtle as
> well.

I've been running with , for some hours now and it could work,
although it looks a bit unprofessional.  Colon : might look better.
OTOH I now remember why N was chosen -- Pine uses this as a new mail
indicator, and perhaps Mutt also does the same.

>> When I have read IMAP mail using another IMAP mail reader (I often
>> read via Squirrelmail web mail) I don't get the N but I do get a
>> . instead.
>
> So is the dot indicating that while the message may have been seen
> before elsewhere, this Gnus instance hasn't seen it yet? 

Yes.  "seen elsewhere" is defined by the server, and can be anything.

> The 'N' would mean that no client has seen the message, while the
> dot would mean that Gnus hasn't seen it. Is that correct?

Yes, although a N might be displayed even if the mail is old if the
server is buggy or has a weird policy.  Gnus doesn't control it.

>> Perhaps the documentation could be improved to convey this stuff in
>> a clearer way. Suggestions?
>
> I can't propose specific wording right now, but these points should be
> made manifest (provided they are correct):
>
> o Have each mark's documentation mention the other, explaining how
>   they differ.
> o Explain the difference in "scope" between the marks. One addresses
>   message state across multiple clients, while the other is relevant
>   only to this client.

I improved it a little, but didn't explain the multi-client issue
since I couldn't come up with a brief and concise explanation.