Re: Mark as unread

[Toby Speight <Toby.Speight@streapadair.freeserve.co.uk>]

Toby> Toby Speight
Toby> <URL:mailto:Toby.Speight@streapadair.freeserve.co.uk>
David> David S. Goldberg <URL:mailto:dsg@mitre.org>
Vadim> Vadim Gutnik <URL:mailto:gutnik@mtl.mit.edu>


0> In article <m1bogeo4dh8.fsf@blackbird.mitre.org>, David wrote:

David> ... duplicate suppression is probably what's biting you in this
David> case.


0> In article <u3dw0uz2y.fsf@lanber.cam.citrix.com>, Toby wrote:

Toby> But it's counter-intuitive that a read article marked unread
Toby> should be treated as if it was a new incoming article.  Is there
Toby> anything we can do to improve this?


0> In article <yjaso40716m.fsf@godot.mit.edu>, Vadim wrote:

Vadim> Eh?  That's what gnus does, and I like it, and use the feature.
Vadim> It seems intuitive to me: that's sort of the point of marking
Vadim> the article unread, isn't it?


To me, the point of marking it unread is that I'll read it when I'm
next in that group (maybe it's a to-do, or something), so it's not very
good if it's immediately marked as read by the duplicate suppression
stuff.  I'd like to suppress the duplicate suppression in this case!

It is still the same article, (with the same article number) - surely
duplicate suppression should only happen to new articles (higher than
the old high-water mark), or perhaps it should remember the group and
article number of the "master copy".  I'm no longer sure that this is
nnimap-specific an more; it could be a Gnus issue.