From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#13546: 24.2.92; Error(s) when sending emails Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:05:54 +0200 Message-ID: <837gn1l2ul.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86ehh9mx93.fsf@somewhere.org> <86libhfj7x.fsf@somewhere.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1359126428 1466 80.91.229.3 (25 Jan 2013 15:07:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:07:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 13546@debbugs.gnu.org To: Sebastien Vauban Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 25 16:07:25 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TyksE-0001Yd-1c for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:07:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38797 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tykrw-0005Hw-FX for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:07:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45081) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tykrp-0005Gc-II for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:07:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tykrm-0004n8-82 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:06:57 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:43917) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tykrm-0004n2-4q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:06:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tykru-0001zy-By for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:07:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:07:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 13546 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.13591263797626 (code B ref -1); Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:07:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Jan 2013 15:06:19 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49380 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TykrC-0001yw-Px for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:06:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33544) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tykr9-0001ym-1j for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:06:17 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tykqy-0004eL-2p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:06:06 -0500 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:48024) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tykqx-0004eH-Vt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:06:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44809) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tykqq-0004xN-No for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:06:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tykqm-0004aa-3B for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:05:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:63983) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tykql-0004aB-NY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:05:51 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MH600D00S9WVJ00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:05:46 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MH600DBUSLMLRA0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:05:46 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <86libhfj7x.fsf@somewhere.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:70299 Archived-At: > From: "Sebastien Vauban" > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:08:50 +0100 > > >> And, what's even more surprising, is the second error: when wanting to save a > >> draft copy of the email (as I couldn't send it), with C-c C-d, I've got the > >> error: > >> > >> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > >> basic-save-buffer-2: IO error writing d:/Users/sva/.gnus.d/drafts/drafts/2: > >> Socket operation on non-socket > >> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > > > Is this all repeatable, or did it happen just once? > > FYI, the _first_ time I press `C-c C-d', I get the above. The second time, not > anymore, and the draft is correctly saved: I quit Emacs, restart it, and send > straight away my email. Sorry, I don't understand: is the "second time" in the same Emacs session, or after restarting? If the former, does the draft get saved to the same file d:/Users/sva/.gnus.d/drafts/drafts/2 as in the first attempt? Also, does "first time" mean first time after the laptop awakes from sleep mode? If so, can you wait a little longer before you try this, perhaps the disk did not yet have chance to spin up. In any case, I'm sure that the "Socket operation on non-socket" part is a red herring: write-region is not careful to zero out errno before the operations it wants to diagnose, so the value is probably coming from some entirely irrelevant interim error. What is important is that write-region _does_ fail in one of these operations, the question is which one?