Updating definition of "bogus" groups?
Eric Abrahamsen <[email protected]> Tue, 21 May 2024 15:47:19 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.emacs.gnus.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi all, In bug#60078[1], there's some discussion about Gnus's check-bogus-group functions and whether they're buggy, or what exactly they're supposed to do, and eventually what "bogus" actually means. Near as I can tell, "bogus" once upon a time meant something very specific in the Usenet world, but that was 20+ years ago, and it's no longer a term of art. If you look at `gnus-check-bogus-newsgroups', the 20-year-old code that determines if a newsgroup is bogus is: (unless (or (gnus-active group) ; Active (and (gnus-info-method info) (not (gnus-secondary-method-p (gnus-info-method info))))) ; Foreign ;; Found a bogus newsgroup. (push group bogus)) So if a group is active, or if it belongs to a method that isn't a secondary method, then it isn't bogus. That seems like an odd and arbitrary criteria for weeding out groups. Based on what I think "bogus" once meant (just that a newsgroup is being superseded, or otherwise discouraged, and dropped from servers' lists), it seems like a more reasonable update of the intention would be: A group is bogus if it belongs to a select method that has a `gnus-request-list' function, but the group itself doesn't appear in the list. This seems like it would be more handy for cleaning up "dangling" groups. Does anyone have an opinion on that idea, one way or the other? Thanks! Eric [1]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=60078