On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:20:40 +0200 [email protected] (Adam Sjøgren) wrote:
AS> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:03:20 +0300, Teemu wrote: >> Thanks for the info! What I don't understand yet is that when exactly >> does this unregistering work? AS> I hope Ted Z will jump in and clarify. I fear my "solution" may be AS> defective in the larger picture, because, well, ehr, I can't really see AS> the larger picture. Sorry for the delay. I think your solution is fine. It's been a while since I looked at the code, but I probably made a mistake with the duplicate elimination. AS> (The patch does work for me, though - so in the specific case is isn't AS> necessarily defective as such.) I'm OK with you comitting it. I personally use a server-based solution so I haven't needed this functionality in years. I think spam.el has been around long enough that we should consider redesigning it with what we've learned from the users' experience and feedback. For instance, setting it up is much too complicated for 99% of the users, while mentats like it just fine. The registry mark support is a mess. I wrote most of it years ago and I like to think my ELisp has gotten better since :) Unfortunately my free time is reserved by other things on my TODO list (tramp-imap.el and imap-hash.el right now) so either it will wait or someone else can pick it up. I don't mind either. Ted _______________________________________________ info-gnus-english mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gnus-english
