Marking 'my' threads as Kept?
Terry Pinnell
rely on seeing *all* subsequent replies under the view I've defined
for such purposes. I call it 'Watch Keep All', and if I pull up Manage
Views I see it is defined by these being checked:
With bodies
Watched
Kept
Show complete threads for matching messages
Under Advanced, it is:
thread (body and watch and keep)
So why then am I *not* finding all replies under that view please?
For example, the post I sent recently 'Attaching file to newsgroup
post?' had a reply, which I only found when I looked in another view
called 'Unread bodies full thread'.
Is there some other setting I need to make or remake please?
--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Terry Pinnell
Alan Baxter
>Anyone with any suggestions please?
It works for me, Terry. I can't think of any suggestions. Sorry.
--
usenet at baxtersys dot com
I've never received a spam sent to this address.
Even very simple obfuscation is effective!
Jaimie Vandenbergh
When you look at the messages with "show all" or similar, do the
messages you want to see actually all have Watch and Keep tags on?
In other words, is this a View problem, or a tagging problem?
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Whilst holidaying with the sprogs and watching Favourite Teddy Bear
trundling through the x-ray, I speculated on the fun that could be had
with a teddy bear containing a radio-opaque teddy-bear skeleton.
- K, asr
Terry Pinnell
>Terry Pinnell <terrypi...@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Anyone with any suggestions please?
>
> ... and what about the one someone gave you? does it work? you don't like
>the way it work? it doesn't work?
When was that please, and who sent it? The only replies I have here
(under any View) are those 3 today.
Terry Pinnell
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 07:37:34 +0100, Terry Pinnell
><terrypi...@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>Terry Pinnell <terrypi...@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>>>If I started a newsgroup thread, I'm pretty sure I used to be able to
>>>rely on seeing *all* subsequent replies under the view I've defined
>>>for such purposes. I call it 'Watch Keep All', and if I pull up Manage
>>>Views I see it is defined by these being checked:
>>>With bodies
>>>Watched
>>>Kept
>>>Show complete threads for matching messages
>>>
>>>Under Advanced, it is:
>>>thread (body and watch and keep)
>>>
>>>So why then am I *not* finding all replies under that view please?
>>>
>>>For example, the post I sent recently 'Attaching file to newsgroup
>>>post?' had a reply, which I only found when I looked in another view
>>>called 'Unread bodies full thread'.
>>>
>>>Is there some other setting I need to make or remake please?
>>
>>Anyone with any suggestions please?
>
>When you look at the messages with "show all" or similar, do the
>messages you want to see actually all have Watch and Keep tags on?
>
>In other words, is this a View problem, or a tagging problem?
>
Thanks Jaimie. It's a tagging problem. Replies in a thread I started
are nor always getting the Keep tag added. For example, this is what
this current thread looks like right now as I compose this:
WK 22 Marking 'my' threads as Kept?
WK 26 Terry Pinnell
W 9 Alan Baxter
W 8 Joe
W 38 Jaimie Vandenbergh
Nick Spalding
on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:16:54 +0100:
Have you perhaps some other filter with Watch but not Keep that is hitting
those? Try upping the priority a little on the Keep filter. Filters with
the same priority can be actioned in any order.
--
Nick Spalding
Vista Home Premium, Intel Viiv dual core E6300 (1.86Ghz, 1066MHz FSB),
2GB RAM, IE7.0, NTFS, Video card Nvidia GeForce 7900GS LCD 1280x1024x60Hz
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<terrypi...@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>>In other words, is this a View problem, or a tagging problem?
>>
>Thanks Jaimie. It's a tagging problem. Replies in a thread I started
>are nor always getting the Keep tag added. For example, this is what
>this current thread looks like right now as I compose this:
>
>WK 22 Marking 'my' threads as Kept?
>WK 26 Terry Pinnell
>W 9 Alan Baxter
>W 8 Joe
>W 38 Jaimie Vandenbergh
Okay. Are you tagging by hand, or do you have a filter to do it? Can
you show us the filter?
One difference between W and K is that W applies to the whole thread,
no matter which message is hit, while K only applies to the message
hit by the filter.
I'm not sure you can set up a filter that will automatically Keep a
message that's part of 'your' thread, but I'd be happy to be wrong.
Terry Pinnell
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:16:54 +0100, Terry Pinnell
><terrypi...@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>
>>>In other words, is this a View problem, or a tagging problem?
>>>
>>Thanks Jaimie. It's a tagging problem. Replies in a thread I started
>>are nor always getting the Keep tag added. For example, this is what
>>this current thread looks like right now as I compose this:
>>
>>WK 22 Marking 'my' threads as Kept?
>>WK 26 Terry Pinnell
>>W 9 Alan Baxter
>>W 8 Joe
>>W 38 Jaimie Vandenbergh
>
>Okay. Are you tagging by hand, or do you have a filter to do it? Can
>you show us the filter?
>
>One difference between W and K is that W applies to the whole thread,
>no matter which message is hit, while K only applies to the message
>hit by the filter.
>
>I'm not sure you can set up a filter that will automatically Keep a
>message that's part of 'your' thread, but I'd be happy to be wrong.
>
> Cheers - Jaimie
Thanks both. I'm confused. The implication of Nick's and Alan's
replies is that what I am trying to do (and thought I *was* doing
until now) is indeed possible. But I'm not sure how I've been
achieving it!
I have this global filter:
Filter Expression:
Author: (Terry Pinnell) Watch Action
Watch thread
Keep
Priority: 950
But I thought there was a setting somewhere that ensured that ALL
posts in 'my' threads were marked Watched and Kept. Presumably there
must be, for the required result to be possible?
So far I can't see any obvious conflict with any other filter in the
Agent newsgroup for instance. And no other filter has a higher
priority.
Nick Spalding
on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:33:38 +0100:
Jaimie is right, I was wrong. The Keep doesn't propagate through the
thread, only the Watch (or Ignore [Subthread]) does that.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>Terry Pinnell wrote, in <6igc33prrdjl82igh...@4ax.com>
> on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:33:38 +0100:
>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>
>> >One difference between W and K is that W applies to the whole thread,
>> >no matter which message is hit, while K only applies to the message
>> >hit by the filter.
>> >
>> >I'm not sure you can set up a filter that will automatically Keep a
>> >message that's part of 'your' thread, but I'd be happy to be wrong.
>> Filter Expression:
>> Author: (Terry Pinnell) Watch Action
>> Watch thread
>> Keep
>> Priority: 950
>Jaimie is right, I was wrong.
Now there's something that doesn't happen often! Unfortunately it
means that:
>The Keep doesn't propagate through the
>thread, only the Watch (or Ignore [Subthread]) does that.
so there's no way to use the K flag as you want to, Terry. For
whole-thread-catching, your only available choice is to set a view for
Watch'ed messages. Not too bad unless you do a lot of Watch'ing.
.... Although Ignore works similarly on whole (sub)threads, maybe
there's something you can do with that? Again, unlesss you do a lot of
Ignore'ing. Just think of it as a flag, rather than as an Ignore. I
can't think of any downside, but I'm sure there ought to be one.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
IEFGOD70248E Illegal cross-universe communication attempt.
IEFGOD99475T Universe terminated.
IEFGOD99883I Invalid restart definition, universe contents lost.
-- Marten Kemp, rasfw
Nick Spalding
<8oud33h1edhdjs6oe...@newsposting.sessile.org>
on Tue, 01 May 2007 09:04:00 GMT:
> .... Although Ignore works similarly on whole (sub)threads, maybe
> there's something you can do with that? Again, unlesss you do a lot of
> Ignore'ing. Just think of it as a flag, rather than as an Ignore. I
> can't think of any downside, but I'm sure there ought to be one.
No good to me, I am a heavy user of Ignore [Subthread], both in filters
and manually!
Terry Pinnell
Thanks both. Looks like I've been deluding myself all this time then!
Carroll Robbins
<fcc633dhqcqtdtsia...@4ax.com> on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:50:57
+0100:
Your view setting is correct. You must use a threaded sort to see the
entire thread. If you have "Start a new thread..." enabled it can break a
thread. The hash collision bug can cause a message to be misthreaded and
not show in the correct thread.
--
Carroll Robbins
Terry Pinnell
Thanks. Guess I'm still rather confused about this! After the earlier
replies reached the consensus that what I wanted wasn't possible, I
concluded that I must have *imagined* that I had that facility (to see
ALL posts in 'my' threads, under one view).
However, as well as your reply apparently contradicting that, hard
evidence that it *does* work is now seen in the fact that your reply
appears correctly in that view! Despite having only a Watch tag, not a
Keep.
All far less intuitive than I think it should be ;-)
Alan Baxter
>After the earlier
>replies reached the consensus that what I wanted wasn't possible,
What consensus? I sent you the very first reply after your second post
asking for help. Told you that what you're doing ought to work and that
it did for me. I am glad that Carroll Robbins was able to give you some
effective pointers about what might have been going wrong for you. And
especially glad that it works for you now.
Alan (so what am I, chopped liver?) Baxter
--
atbaxter at baxtersys dot com
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<terrypi...@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Thanks. Guess I'm still rather confused about this! After the earlier
>replies reached the consensus that what I wanted wasn't possible, I
>concluded that I must have *imagined* that I had that facility (to see
>ALL posts in 'my' threads, under one view).
Oho - must apologise for that. I didn't pay attention to the "Show
complete threads for matching messages" part of your View, because I
was unaware of its existance (I only ever edit in the "advanced" view,
which gives no clues!)
Neat feature, we like.
So, now you're back working again, do we worry about why it didn't
work for a while?
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"I did not attend his funeral, but I wrote a nice letter saying
I approved of it." - Mark Twain
Lorenz
>If I started a newsgroup thread, I'm pretty sure I used to be able to
>rely on seeing *all* subsequent replies under the view I've defined
>for such purposes. I call it 'Watch Keep All', and if I pull up Manage
>Views I see it is defined by these being checked:
>With bodies
>Watched
>Kept
>Show complete threads for matching messages
>
>Under Advanced, it is:
>thread (body and watch and keep)
>
>So why then am I *not* finding all replies under that view please?
I think your problem is the keep part of your view expression.
"watch" is propagated to all members of the thread, "keep"not!
Lorenz
Terry Pinnell
Thanks Lorenz, but in fact that's taken care of by the third option I
mentioned, which I have enabled, namely 'Show complete threads for
matching messages'.
I'm not at all clear why Forte took this approach (rather than just
'propagating Keep, which I'd have found more intuitive), but it
apparently achieves the same end.
This issue seems to have confounded others here with far more savvy
than me about the innards of Agent, so I feel a bit better about my
confusion!
As to the basic cause of those missing posts - which prompted the
thread - my best bet is based on the reply from Carroll, that it's
down to something called the 'hash collision bug'!
Whatever the cause, it's happily gone away. For now. I see that I
raised the same issue a year or two ago, so presumably this bug has
been around a while. Anyone know if there's a permanent fix for it
please? Otherwise, a year or two from now, I'm liable to be puzzling
over it yet again ;-)
My thanks to all who came to my help on this.
Terry Pinnell
>On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:45:35 +0100, Terry Pinnell
><terrypi...@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>Thanks. Guess I'm still rather confused about this! After the earlier
>>replies reached the consensus that what I wanted wasn't possible, I
>>concluded that I must have *imagined* that I had that facility (to see
>>ALL posts in 'my' threads, under one view).
>
>Oho - must apologise for that. I didn't pay attention to the "Show
>complete threads for matching messages" part of your View, because I
>was unaware of its existance (I only ever edit in the "advanced" view,
>which gives no clues!)
>
>Neat feature, we like.
>
>So, now you're back working again, do we worry about why it didn't
>work for a while?
>
> Cheers - Jaimie
Thanks Jaimie. No problem - bottom line is a happy ending!
See also my reply to Lorenz.
Carroll Robbins
+0100:
>I'm not at all clear why Forte took this approach (rather than just
>'propagating Keep, which I'd have found more intuitive), but it
>apparently achieves the same end.
The thread option is useful in far more cases. The view I usually use for
marking messages for retrieval is "thread (not read and not body and not
watch and not ignore and not mark)". My normal view for reading messages is
"thread (not read and body and not ignore)". This lets me see the thread
context of the messages.
>As to the basic cause of those missing posts - which prompted the
>thread - my best bet is based on the reply from Carroll, that it's
>down to something called the 'hash collision bug'!
>
>Whatever the cause, it's happily gone away. For now. I see that I
>raised the same issue a year or two ago, so presumably this bug has
>been around a while. Anyone know if there's a permanent fix for it
>please? Otherwise, a year or two from now, I'm liable to be puzzling
>over it yet again ;-)
The bug existed in the first Agent (public beta) and all later versions.
For threading purposes, Message-ID's are converted (hashed) to 32 bit
numbers to save space and increase speed. Unfortunately, more than one
Message-ID can convert to the same 32 bit number. This is called a hash
collision and can cause the message to be misthreaded. How often this
occurs depends on the total number of Message-ID's in the folder and
increases rapidly as the number increases. To fix the problem will use more
space in the database and be tricky to implement. Existing databases only
have the 32 bit number for the References header. It can't be converted
back to the Message-ID. You can reduce but not eliminate the problem by
keeping fewer messages in each folder.
--
Carroll Robbins
Terry Pinnell
Thanks, appreciate that clarification. I could have lost some sleep
fretting over the meaning of 'hash collision' ;-)
My Agent newsgroup folder is about 7 MB (of 260 MB in total), and in a
text editor it has about 130,000 lines. Not sure how to determine how
many messages it contains - is there a simple way of doing that? But
it's plainly a lot. So that must explain why this quirk arises with
increasing frequency. I suppose it's probably safe now to cull those
from 2001...
Carroll Robbins
+0100:
>My Agent newsgroup folder is about 7 MB (of 260 MB in total), and in a
>text editor it has about 130,000 lines. Not sure how to determine how
>many messages it contains - is there a simple way of doing that? But
>it's plainly a lot. So that must explain why this quirk arises with
>increasing frequency. I suppose it's probably safe now to cull those
>from 2001...
To determine the number of messages (with or without bodies) in a folder,
select the folder, do View -> All Messages, the rightmost number in the
status bar is the total number of messages for that view. You can select a
view that shows all messages with bodies to get that total.
To reduce the number of messages in a folder you can move some to an
archive folder.
--
Carroll Robbins