From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.user/14318 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tommy Kelly Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.user Subject: nnimap-split-fancy Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:10:49 -0600 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1292548282 21624 80.91.229.12 (17 Dec 2010 01:11:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 01:11:22 +0000 (UTC) To: info-gnus-english@gnu.org Original-X-From: info-gnus-english-bounces+gegu-info-gnus-english=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 17 02:11:17 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gegu-info-gnus-english@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PTOqq-00033p-TE for gegu-info-gnus-english@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 02:11:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51394 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PTOqq-0000x0-Bn for gegu-info-gnus-english@m.gmane.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:11:16 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53130 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PTOql-0000wd-Qv for info-gnus-english@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:11:14 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PTOqi-00085l-10 for info-gnus-english@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:11:11 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:60753) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PTOqh-00085T-Of for info-gnus-english@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:11:07 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PTOqf-0002w6-Vn for info-gnus-english@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 02:11:05 +0100 Original-Received: from cpe-70-112-150-104.austin.res.rr.com ([70.112.150.104]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 02:11:05 +0100 Original-Received: from tommy.kelly by cpe-70-112-150-104.austin.res.rr.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 02:11:05 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 70 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cpe-70-112-150-104.austin.res.rr.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.2 (darwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:JM29F3+sc4MZHrOHNQ1WzR7ek5s= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: info-gnus-english@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Announcements and discussions for GNUS, the GNU Emacs Usenet newsreader \(in English\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: info-gnus-english-bounces+gegu-info-gnus-english=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: info-gnus-english-bounces+gegu-info-gnus-english=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.user:14318 Archived-At: I may have to propose info "6.3.6 Fancy Mail Splitting" for the winner of "Most Difficult To Follow Instructions 2010", but let's see. As a start, does the following make sense? The intent is to put emails from domain1.com and domain2.com into, respectively, groups emails-from-domain1 and emails-from-domain2, and to leave all others in INBOX. (setq gnus-secondary-select-methods '( (nnimap "work" (nnimap-address "imap.gmail.com") (nnimap-stream ssl) (nnimap-server-port 993) (nnimap-inbox "INBOX") (nnimap-split-methods 'nnmail-split-fancy) (nnmail-split-fancy ( | ("from" ".*domain1\\.com" "emails-from-domain1) ("from" ".*domain2\\.com" "emails-from-domain2) "INBOX" "") ) ) ) If it does make sense, well it doesn't work. How about an example from someone who groks this stuff. What would the fancy splitting look like to put into group "jabba-hates-luke", all messages from jabba@thehutt.com with "Luke is annoying" in the subject? And then, other questions about the info: * "This variable has the format of a split. A split is ..." Is a "split" a well-defined lisp thing? If not, isn't that definition nothing more than the statement: "This variable has the format of a possibly recursive thingy"? * "Here are the possible split syntaxes: group ..." This is very confusing given that "junk" and "nil" are also listed as options later. It makes it look like group is another symbol that can be provided as a split. But then: * "junk If the split is the symbol junk ..." and * "nil If the split is nil it is ignored" What would it look like for the split to *be* the symbol junk? And an example of a nil split would be helpful. * "(! func split) If the split is a list, and the first element is !, then split will be processed, and func will be called as a function with the result of split as argument..." Now I'm not showing italics, and so in the original (with-italics) the difference between *the* split, and its internal split (i.e. third item in the list) is clearer. But it would be a helluva lot easier to read if "split" wasn't being used in two different senses. Also, what is "the result of split"? Is it a split? A group name? What? Note -- I am not au fait with lisp, so maybe the above are all stupid newb questions, but I'm kinda guessing not. thanks, Tommy