Re: gnus: link annoyance

[Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us>]

Hi François,

François Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> The list gnus-mark-article-hook, which is there for customization, has
> the function gnus-summary-mark-read-and-unread-as-read by default.  I
> guess that if the hook list was empty, articles would be displayed and
> not automatically marked as read.

Yeah.  There's a bunch of other possible functions, but none of them
seem to work here (though nil might work nicely).

(apropos-documentation "gnus-mark-article-hook")

>> Perhaps you would like to the following on mailgroups you care about
>> (from the *Groups* buffer):
>
>>     G c C-s Display S-TAB RET TAB RET 1 TAB 100 M-< TAB TAB RET
>
>> Also, you can search with nnir using GG or C-u GG (but links probably
>> won't work from a nnir buffer).
>
> I would not think one should modify his Gnus habits or methods merely
> because Org has a tool to search in Gnus.  Org uses Gnus, but Gnus
> should not be disturbed because of that.

I agree.  The method is a way to make Gnus act like a 'normal' MUA in
mail groups.  Combined with expiring it would give you almost the same
work-flow, but in more 'traditionalist' manner, if e.g. TB represents
a 'traditional' MUA.

>>   1. Mark an article as important with '!',
>>      (gnus-summary-tick-article-forward N)
>
> But I do not want to tick (or bang) articles because I do Org searches.
> When really in Gnus, if I want to keep an article, I unread it.  But
> that does not mean I consider this article especially important.

It seems counter-intuitive to me, but it's not my mailbox!

Just out of curiosity, 'cause I'm still not fully appreciating your
setup; Say you have a mail X that's semi-interesting.  Do you then,
read it, mark it as unread, close the buffer, go back later, read it
again and unread it?

I used to use a similar setup in Thunderbird, though I would 'archive'
boring emails ('expire' in Gnus, I guess) and keep the remaining read
emails in my inbox together with new emails.

Cheers,
Rasmus

-- 
I hear there's rumors on the, uh, Internets. . .