[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Spam despite spam header

From: Adam Sjøgren
Subject: Re: Spam despite spam header
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 18:03:40 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Dmitrii Kashin <> writes:

> (Adam Sjøgren) writes:

>> Dmitrii Kashin <> writes:

>>> And of course this is not a good practice to use gnus for sorting
>>> your mail. It is very slow and local-only.

>> What works horribly for you may very well work great for the next
>> guy.

> This was not emotions.

You defining what I have been doing for 15+ years as "not a good
practice" seems like a value-judgement on your part; and one I do not
agree with.

Especially when your only reasons are non-issues for me.

> I've specifically got rather definite claims. 2 years ago I got and
> spitted mail by gnus. And... First of all, this was very slow while
> downloading big attachments. And I needed to wait for a very long time
> in order to continue reading mail.

So it works horribly for _your_ use case. For me using Gnus to sort
email works great.

All I was saying, was exactly that.

(Actually my mail setup is specifically centered around having Gnus sort
 my email.)

> Secondly, it was good to me only until I bought a second computer
> (laptop). How would you manage mail if you could do it only with one
> of you computers?

What I was trying to say is: There are multiple solutions to this
problem. Don't discourage the other solutions just because they don't
suit you.

> And what did I need the second computer for in this case? For all
> except communication?

I really don't have any idea of what you use your computers for :-)

Again: What doesn't work for the way you want to handle email might very
well work perfectly for someone else.

I have all my email routed from my server directly to my desktop
machine, where it is read and sorted by Gnus.

If I am not at the machine, Gnus will automatically fetch the email
every 5 minutes and forward what I have defined as important email to an
IMAP-account on my server, to which my phone connects. Non-important
email isn't forwarded, as I don't care to see spam and cron-emails on my

If I am the one initiating mail fetch, sitting in front of Gnus, nothing
is forwarded to my phone - it isn't necessary to get it on the phone as
well, as I will be reading it on my desktop.

If I want to read email from another computer, I ssh to my desktop
machine. (This way I don't have to maintain my email configuration on
multiple machines.)

As you can see, my email setup is radically different from yours.

Does that mean that you should use Gnus the way I do? Does my setup give
me the right to say that the way you handle your email is not good
practice, and that it is inefficient and wasteful?

I don't think so.

It sounds like you prefer to have all your email at the server and use
IMAP to access it from multiple devices, configuring each of those
devices/computers to your liking.

That is a fine solution for your use case, I am sure. But it isn't the
only solution, and it certainly isn't the perfect solution for all
cases; specifically: it isn't for my use case.

> Now I get mail via imap sorting it on server side by sieve. For most
> mailing lists I use gmane transport, and for all of my rss I use gwene.

I like Gmane and Gwene as well, and use them extensively and exclusively
for mailing lists and newsfeeds.

> In comparison with nnmail and nnrss this works supersonic and in
> background, by the way.

The only alternative to your setup isn't nnmail and nnrss.

> If I did everything right in the beginning, I would not spend so much
> time for reorganization of my mailing system.

You live and learn :-)

>> Using Gnus to split my email has served me great for the past 15+ years,
>> and I think it is a perfectly fine practice.

> I would like to know how you solved the problems with speed described
> above.

By not organizing the way I handle my email in a way that gives me those

  Best regards,


 "Although, in a sense, recognizing them as ancient           Adam Sjøgren
  might not necessarily be wrong, it's indeed useless."

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]