From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daiki Ueno Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: bug#3953: 23.0.94; GPG interaction fails Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:34:27 +0900 Message-ID: <5fb842ac-b803-4894-8c58-f514f1967a2a@broken.deisui.org> References: <20090727194515.F1958E42E9@wilson.homeunix.com> Reply-To: Daiki Ueno , 3953@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1248778675 14422 80.91.229.12 (28 Jul 2009 10:57:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:57:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org, 3953@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com To: Torsten Bronger Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 28 12:57:47 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MVkNL-0004Rj-Qg for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:57:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55325 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MVkNK-00049K-QR for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:57:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MVkNF-000489-5h for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:57:37 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MVkND-00045v-9s for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:57:36 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39845 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MVkNC-00045S-QH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:57:34 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:52094) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MVkNC-0004Ej-73 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:57:34 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n6SAvUtT016448; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:57:32 -0700 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n6SAe5LQ013214; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:40:05 -0700 X-Loop: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com Resent-From: Daiki Ueno Resent-To: bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:40:05 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: followup 3953 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B.124877729012196 (code B ref -1); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:40:05 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 28 Jul 2009 10:34:50 +0000 X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.5 Bayes not run. spammytokens:Tokens not available. hammytokens:Tokens not available. Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n6SAYkjV012190 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:34:47 -0700 Original-Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]:57685) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1MVk17-0004oe-Pr for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:34:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MVk12-0008Nf-Kf for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:34:44 -0400 Original-Received: from ivory4.scn-net.ne.jp ([219.117.176.192]:38313) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MVk11-0008N0-5J for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:34:39 -0400 Original-Received: from ([192.168.0.187]) (envelope sender: ) by ivory4.scn-net.ne.jp with Active!Hunter esmtp server; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:34:34 +0900 Original-Received: Received: from well-done.deisui.org (g187018.scn-net.ne.jp [202.83.187.18]) (authenticated) by blue17.scn-net.ne.jp (unknown) with ESMTP id n6SAYWZH013024; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:34:33 +0900 Original-Received: from 221x255x76x222.ap221.ftth.ucom.ne.jp ([221.255.76.222] helo=chilled) by well-done.deisui.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MVk0u-0000sa-KS; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:34:32 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20090727194515.F1958E42E9@wilson.homeunix.com> (Torsten Bronger's message of "Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:45:15 +0200 (CEST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.96 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Error: [-] ERROR: /var/run/p0f.sock: Connection refused X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:57:36 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:29676 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:24870 Archived-At: reopen 2412 merge 2412 3953 thanks >>>>> In <20090727194515.F1958E42E9@wilson.homeunix.com> >>>>> Torsten Bronger wrote: > >>> - (accept-process-output (epg-context-process context) 1))) > >>> + (accept-process-output (epg-context-process context) 1)) > >>> + (sleep-for 0.1)) > >> > >> That seems to do the trick. At least, I had no problem in ~15 attempts > >> to preview/send signed messages, whereas without your patch the "Sign > >> failed" error would happen about every second time. > > > > Thanks for testing. I've checked in the patch. > I experience the same problem but the above patch doesn't really > help me. Without the sleeping time, I get failures with signature > checking of incoming emails almost always; with the sleeping time, > it works at least in 20% of the cases. I increased the time to even > 10 seconds but the success rate didn't increase further. The > behaviour remains probabilistic. Thanks for further testing. Well, in that case an essential part of process-filter might not be executed in 20% of the cases. Does replacing (sleep-for 0.1) with: (epg--process-filter (epg-context-process context) "") change the situation? Regards, -- Daiki Ueno