Phillip Lord writes: > Amin Bandali writes: > >> Phillip Lord writes: >> >>> Is there a way to get either nnml or nnimap split across backends? >>> >> >> Not that I know of, but I too would love to be able to split across >> backends, e.g. from one nnimap backend to another, or from an nnimap >> backend to an nnfolder one perhaps. > > > Yes, and I don't understand why not. I wonder how big a fix it would be. > I have no idea. Lars, Eric, what do you think? > > >> [...] >> >>> >>> Finally, with nnimap splitting, the default group is "bogus". How I >>> specific "don't do anything with the message, but leave it where it >>> is"? >>> >> >> I manually specify the name of the inbox like so: >> >> (nnimap "gnu" >> ;; [...] >> (nnimap-inbox "INBOX") >> (nnimap-split-methods 'nnimap-split-fancy) >> (nnimap-split-fancy (| >> ;; [...] >> ;; otherwise, leave mail in INBOX >> "INBOX"))) >> >> Not sure if there's a better way. > > And does that work? I mean it doesn't remove the message and then read > add it or some such? I presume that splitting only happens over unread > messages, because I use "inbox infinite" -- so I get a lot of messages > there. Yeah it works fine for me, at least for nnimap, I'd imagine because of C-h v nnimap-unsplittable-articles RET, defaulting to '(%Deleted %Seen), meaning that messages marked as deleted or read should not be subject to splitting. That said, I think an explicit "do nothing" rule would be nice indeed.