how about using the development Emacs?

[Dan Jacobson <jidanni@dman.ddts.net>]

>>>>> "RMS" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

RMS> What Emacs version is this?  It does not fail for me in the latest
RMS> development Emacs.

notRMS>     Gnus puts the version in my headers, Emacs/21.2.

RMS> That header is hidden by default in Rmail.

Well, it is hidden too here in gnus, but every gnus produced message has it
in the header, so if I were you, I'd tell rmail not to hide that header
for you, and even instead, highlight it, blink it :-), as it seems
like a good thing to know for you. I.e. unless the user mentions
differently, the one in the header is what he's using.  I mean all
these bytes added to each message over the years and the Chief
GNUisance is not benefiting from them?!

RMS> Anyway, how about using the development Emacs?  Then you'd report new
RMS> bugs rather than the old bugs.

What fun would that be then?  Seriously though, you overestimate my
bandwidth, 56K, with another coin dropping every 10 minutes, and even
if I wanted to blow the dough, they said my mountaintop hideaway is
too far for ADSL etc. Plus, with my new multifaceted life, I don't
even use the computer every day. And, with my Limited Edition Brain, I
leave the setting up to Debian Sid, which I freshen with CDs maybe
once a year on some rare trip to town.  Anyway, it seems 4 out of 5 of
my bugs are still there anyway, not bad.
-- 
http://jidanni.org/ Taiwan(04)25854780