From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.user/516
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.user
Subject: Re: Can Gnus handle multiple ISPs?
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 00:20:45 -0400
Organization: What did you have in mind?  A short, blunt, human pyramid?
Message-ID: <m3n0umgr0s.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu>
References: <958686cf.0205250726.5867ff99@posting.google.com> <bobu1ovsv2y.fsf@gis.net>
 <m3g00fem8q.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu> <bobn0unsgr1.fsf@gis.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138667493 7279 80.91.229.2 (31 Jan 2006 00:31:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:31:33 +0000 (UTC)
Original-X-From: nobody Tue Jan 17 17:27:42 2006
Original-Path: quimby.gnus.org!news.ccs.neu.edu!news.dfci.harvard.edu!news.harvard.edu!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!HSNX.atgi.net!usenet.INS.cwru.edu!not-for-mail
Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.gnus
Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: multivac.student.cwru.edu
Original-X-Trace: eeyore.INS.cwru.edu 1022473246 21398 129.22.96.25 (27 May 2002 04:20:45 GMT)
Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@po.cwru.edu
Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 May 2002 04:20:45 GMT
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090007 (Oort Gnus v0.07) Emacs/21.2 (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:S/z+Kzk72Gp7DYn2ha19kZj3qco=
Original-Xref: bridgekeeper.physik.uni-ulm.de gnus-emacs-gnus:656
Original-Lines: 21
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 656   Tue Jan 17 17:27:42 2006
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.user:516
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.user/516>

Bob Babcock <wssddc@gis.net> wrote:
>> Why not just use a secondary or foreign server?
>
> I couldn't tell from the info files what happens if you read the same
> newsgroup from different servers.

They're kept completely separate.  Reading an article on one server
does not cause the article to be marked as read on the other.

> Separating the setup as much as possible seems to me to be the most
> natural way to handle multiple servers.

Right.  Toggling the definition of gnus-select-method makes them less
separate than having one as the primary and the other as secondary or
foreign (or both secondary or foreign).  I wouldn't be at all
surprised if toggling the definition of gnus-select-method made
something break, especially if the servers' article numbers aren't
synchronized.


paul