bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Drew Adams]

I quickly scanned some recent mails in emacs-devel about users being
forced, one time only, to answer a question about their mailer, when
they try to submit a bug.  At least that's what I thought I read.
That in itself sounded like something users of an outside mail
client such as myself could live with.
 
But it seems that what was described is nowhere near as annoying and
confusing as what really happens.
 
Before you get to the (confusing enough) question about SMTP mail
configuration, where some users of outside mail clients will want to
answer `n', never to be bothered again, you have to go through the same
silliness we saw before (see previous bugs), about the `From:' field.
 
If the user is going to answer `n' to the SMTP mail config question,
in order to just use an outsider mailer (e.g. Outlook), then there is no
reason for them to have to go through the silly dialog about "tickle me"
and be told they must edit the `From:' field in order to be able to
continue.
 
The UI for this seems to be all backward.  Whoever dreamed it up
perhaps did not take serious enough the use case of a user who just
wants to say, once and for all, "No, I do not want to use Emacs for
mail. I do not want to configure SMTP mail".  You've made it 42
times more complex than it should be.  Please straighten this out.
 
Not only that, but it is apparently the case that this is NOT a
one-time ordeal.  For emacs -Q, a user has to go through all of
this EACH time.  Just hitting `n' would be bad enough.  But no
one who will use `n' should have to go through all of this crap:
 
"Is `joeblow@JOESMACHINE.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me'
really your email address? (yes or no) " no
 
"Please edit the From address and try again"
 
WTF?, edit, edit, grumble, edit...
 
C-c C-c
 
"Send this bug report to the Emacs maintainers (yes or no) " yes
 
"Configure outgoing SMTP in Emacs (y or n) " n
 
Args out of range: 102021, 102022
 
[I saw that error one time I tried, from emacs -Q.  I don't know
how systematic it is.  THIS bug report is only about the RIDICULOUS
obstacle-course dialog we make users go through now, after asking
them to please start each bug report from emacs -Q.]

And why would we even think about mixing `(yes or no)' and `(y or n)' in the
same dialog?  Downright diabolical.
 
In GNU Emacs 24.0.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2011-07-11 on 3249CTO
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (4.5) --no-opt --cflags
-Ic:/build/include'
 

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Glenn Morris]

Drew Adams wrote (on Wed, 13 Jul 2011 at 16:39 -0700):

> THIS bug report is only about the RIDICULOUS obstacle-course dialog
> we make users go through now, after asking them to please start each
> bug report from emacs -Q.

I never know who "we" is supposed to be.

"We" don't ask people to submit bug reports from emacs -Q, that adds
no value. What the instructions ask for is a *recipe starting from
emacs -Q that shows the problem*. This is a way to get you to show how
to reproduce the problem. Send the actual report from your normal,
configured Emacs.

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Drew Adams]

> > THIS bug report is only about the RIDICULOUS obstacle-course dialog
> > we make users go through now, after asking them to please start each
> > bug report from emacs -Q.
> 
> I never know who "we" is supposed to be.

Emacs Dev and all other little elves such as myself who contribute to its
development.

> "We" don't ask people to submit bug reports from emacs -Q, that adds
> no value. What the instructions ask for is a *recipe starting from
> emacs -Q that shows the problem*.

Excuse my shorthand.  That is precisely what I meant.

> This is a way to get you to show how
> to reproduce the problem. Send the actual report from your normal,
> configured Emacs.

No.  For many people, including me, their normal, configured Emacs is far too
complex to be the basis of most bug reports.  We do not want to pick all of a
user's extra customizations, if we can help it.

I don't know where this mailer stuff is saved, but if it is saved in the user's
`custom-file' or init file then in order to start from emacs -Q and get to a
reasonable bug-report state s?he needs to answer this mail nonsense EACH time.

This is (should be considered) totally unacceptable.  It works against what _we_
want in terms of bug reporting.  Not to mention that it is simply not nice to
users.

At the very least we should be able to get rid of the backwardness: making users
who will ultimately hit `n' for SMTP configuration jump through lots of
irrelevant obstacles.  Ask the SMTP question first, if you absolutely must ask
it each time, and then DTRT for a `n' response.

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Lawrence Mitchell]

Drew Adams wrote:

[...]

>> This is a way to get you to show how
>> to reproduce the problem. Send the actual report from your normal,
>> configured Emacs.

> No.  For many people, including me, their normal, configured
> Emacs is far too complex to be the basis of most bug reports.
> We do not want to pick all of a user's extra customizations, if
> we can help it.

The customisations in your normal emacs have /nothing to do/ with
the bug report.  The bug report has a /self-contained/ recipe
starting from emacs -Q, but for all one cares it might have been
written on parchment and sent by pigeon.

I don't know how you produce bug reports but for me the process
is something like:

* notice bug in my (customised) emacs
* emacs -Q
* try and reproduce bug
* if successful go back to the normal emacs, hit report-emacs-bug
* type the commands I used from emacs -Q to trigger the bug
* send

At no point do I try and send email from an emacs -Q instance.

> I don't know where this mailer stuff is saved, but if it is
> saved in the user's `custom-file' or init file then in order to
> start from emacs -Q and get to a reasonable bug-report state
> s?he needs to answer this mail nonsense EACH time.

Yes, that's what -Q does, ignore /all/ user settings.  How do you
propose ignoring all but one user setting in a way that doesn't
lead to more pain.

> This is (should be considered) totally unacceptable.  It works
> against what _we_ want in terms of bug reporting.  Not to
> mention that it is simply not nice to users.

> At the very least we should be able to get rid of the
> backwardness: making users who will ultimately hit `n' for SMTP
> configuration jump through lots of irrelevant obstacles.  Ask
> the SMTP question first, if you absolutely must ask it each
> time, and then DTRT for a `n' response.

This I agree with.  If the option exists to send mail through
emacs or not it should go something like:

M-x report-emacs-bug RET

Do you want to configure SMTP in Emacs?
no

Write bug report.

Hit send.

If mailclient-send-it is being used, you get to fill in the
address (maybe) in your normal mail client.  If you're passing
off to a local sendmail (sendmail-send-it) you'll need to specify
a valid address at this point.

So effectively I feel there are two bug reports here:

1) Change order of questioning for one-time SMTP configuration to
avoid pointless questions for people who don't want to send mail
in Emacs.

2) Add a method of saving a user customisation that is picked up
when running emacs -Q.

The former seems like a sensible thing to do.  I (FWIW) think the
latter is a terrible idea.

Lawrence
-- 
Lawrence Mitchell <wence@gmx.li>

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Drew Adams]

> So effectively I feel there are two bug reports here:
> 
> 1) Change order of questioning for one-time SMTP configuration to
> avoid pointless questions for people who don't want to send mail
> in Emacs.
> 
> 2) Add a method of saving a user customisation that is picked up
> when running emacs -Q.
> 
> The former seems like a sensible thing to do.  I (FWIW) think the
> latter is a terrible idea.

I did *not* propose your #2.  I would not propose it.

My preference would be to return to the bug-reporting behavior users had before
- much less confusing and invasive.

Emacs is for everyone, not just programmers and not just people familiar with
SMTP or even with configuring a mail client for SMTP.  When a user tries to
submit a bug report, starting out by asking about SMTP configuration is not good
UI for a program such as Emacs that is aimed at everyone.

A user who has email already set up - which is probably 99.999% of computer and
cell-phone users - should be able to send an Emacs bug report without any
interaction with Emacs wrt mail setup.

Just one opinion.  We are complicating things unnecessarily - Occam's razor.

Aside from sending a bug report, which should be for all users, including
non-techie Emacs newbies, I don't care so much how complicated things get (I
care, but not as much).

But we should be making bug reporting simpler, not more scary, confusing, and
difficult to use.

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Drew Adams]

> My preference would be to return to the bug-reporting 
> behavior users had before - much less confusing and invasive.
> 
> Emacs is for everyone, not just programmers and not just 
> people familiar with SMTP or even with configuring a mail
> client for SMTP.  When a user tries to submit a bug report,
> starting out by asking about SMTP configuration is not good
> UI for a program such as Emacs that is aimed at everyone.
> 
> A user who has email already set up - which is probably 
> 99.999% of computer and cell-phone users - should be able to
> send an Emacs bug report without any interaction with Emacs
> wrt mail setup.
> 
> Just one opinion.  We are complicating things unnecessarily - 
> Occam's razor.
> 
> Aside from sending a bug report, which should be for all 
> users, including non-techie Emacs newbies, I don't care so
> much how complicated things get (I care, but not as much).
> 
> But we should be making bug reporting simpler, not more 
> scary, confusing, and difficult to use.

What's happening with this bug?

Time goes by, and still users are forced to jump through silly hoops just to
report a bug from emacs -Q.

This is not helpful to Emacs development, IMO.  It discourages bug reporting,
especially from newbies.  It is annoying in general.

And it is not necessary.  This is a regression.  We never had this nonsense
before.  Can we please restore the sane, simple, user-friendly approach we had
before?

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Stefan Monnier]

> Time goes by, and still users are forced to jump through silly hoops just to
> report a bug from emacs -Q.

If it hurts, don't do that.  I think it's really the only possible
answer given that "emacs -Q" specifically means to ignore as much as
possible user configurations.


        Stefan

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Drew Adams]

 
> > Time goes by, and still users are forced to jump through 
> > silly hoops just to report a bug from emacs -Q.
> 
> If it hurts, don't do that.  I think it's really the only possible
> answer given that "emacs -Q" specifically means to ignore as much as
> possible user configurations.

What are you talking about?  Don't do what?

I have no problem with the fact that emacs -Q means to ignore user configs.
What are you talking about?

The hoops I spoke of were to have to use a different (e.g. old) Emacs session to
report a bug in the latest Emacs build.  Why?  Because the current builds do not
work!  They do not let you mail a bug report.

Please read the bug thread.  This is a regression.  Emacs users should be able
to _easily_ report a bug from emacs -Q.  And on Windows, at least, their
ordinary mail client (e.g. Outlook) should be invoked and the bug text made
available on the clipboard, as previously.

I cannot believe you would think this regression is somehow an improvement.  I
can only guess that you have not read the thread or do not understand the added
obstacles to user reporting.

Have you seen bug #9155?  It shows that after I reported #9074 some changes were
apparently made (perhaps to remedy some of the #9074 problems?) that broke
things even more.  Do you consider the behavior reported in #9155 an
improvement?

It is now impossible for me to send a bug report from recent Emacs 24 builds.  I
have submitted several reports since this was broken, but all have had to be
from older Emacs builds (e.g. releases), even though they are reporting problems
in the recent builds.

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Lennart Borgman]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 19:34, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Please read the bug thread.  This is a regression.  Emacs users should be able
> to _easily_ report a bug from emacs -Q.  And on Windows, at least, their
> ordinary mail client (e.g. Outlook) should be invoked and the bug text made
> available on the clipboard, as previously.

Why was this broken? We went through quite a lot of trouble to get
this working once.

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

>> Please read the bug thread.  This is a regression.  Emacs users
>> should be able to _easily_ report a bug from emacs -Q.  And on
>> Windows, at least, their ordinary mail client (e.g. Outlook) should
>> be invoked and the bug text made available on the clipboard, as
>> previously.
>
> Why was this broken? We went through quite a lot of trouble to get
> this working once.

Nothing has changed here, except that you're asked one y-or-n question.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Drew Adams]

> Nothing has changed here, except that you're asked one y-or-n 
> question.

Wrong.  And see bug #9155.

Honestly, characterizing this regression as simply asking one y-or-n question is
completely <unmentionable>.

The user must edit the From field, errors are raised, etc.  It is practically
impossible to send a bug report from emacs -Q now.

To be clear, here we go: I'll do it _again_ for you, from emacs -Q, with a
Windows build from 2011-07-25: I type in a bug report and hit C-c C-c.

1. You have to answer this silly question: "Is
`myuser@MYMACHINE.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me' really your
email address? (yes or no)".  If you are able to understand that (and why it is
being asked), you will correctly answer "no".

2. "Please edit the From address and try again".  And the window is scrolled all
the way to the bottom, so you see only this now:

..."rfn-eshadow timer select scroll-bar mouse jit-lock font-lock syntax
facemenu font-core frame cham georgian utf-8-lang misc-lang vietnamese
tibetan thai tai-viet lao korean japanese hebrew greek romanian slovak
czech european ethiopic indian cyrillic chinese case-table epa-hook
jka-cmpr-hook help simple abbrev minibuffer button faces cus-face files
text-properties overlay sha1 md5 base64 format env code-pages mule
custom widget hashtable-print-readable backquote make-network-process
multi-tty emacs)"

Anyway, you make the guess that "try again" means to hit C-c C-c (?).
You scroll up, find the From address, and edit it.  Then you hit C-c C-c again.

3. "Send this bug report to the Emacs maintainers? (yes or no)"  yes

4. "Configure outgoing SMTP in Emacs? (y or n) n

(But why does the UI switch from yes/no to y/n?  I already pointed this out...)

5. "Sending failed; no recipients"

That, is spite of the fact that the To: field has bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org.  What
happened?  What do you do now?

No pop up of email client, nada.

And here's the complete text of *Messages* (again):

For information about GNU Emacs and the GNU system, type C-h C-a.
Checking for load-path shadows...
Checking 1 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/site-lisp...
Checking 499 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp...
Checking 87 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/calc...
Checking 57 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/calendar...
Checking 148 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/emacs-lisp...
Checking 48 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/emulation...
Checking 68 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/erc...
Checking 55 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/eshell...
Checking 259 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/gnus...
Checking 65 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/international...
Checking 59 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/language...
Checking 69 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/mail...
Checking 48 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/mh-e...
Checking 121 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/net...
Checking 48 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/nxml...
Checking 194 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/org...
Checking 57 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/play...
Checking 170 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/progmodes...
Checking 88 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/textmodes...
Checking 62 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/url...
Checking 80 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/vc...
Checking 65 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/obsolete...
Checking 24 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/lisp/cedet...
Checking 2 files in c:/Emacs-24-2011-07-25-lex/leim...
Checking for load-path shadows...done
call-interactively: Text is read-only [2 times]
report-emacs-bug-hook: Please edit the From address and try again
Sending...
Sending via mail...
Configure outgoing SMTP in Emacs? (y or n)  y
Setting `sendmail-query-once-function' temporarily since "emacs -q" would
overwrite customizations
smtpmail-send-it: Sending failed; no recipients
Auto-saving...

6. Nothing was mailed.  No mail client window popped up.  Nothing happened.  No
feedback except incomprehensible messages, some of which are buried in
*Messages* and were never displayed (noticeably).

7. What the <...> do you call this, if not a serious regression that hampers
users from using Emacs and reporting problems?  I cannot believe that this is
not being taken seriously.

Put yourself in the place of an Emacs newbie on Windows.  Read the transcript
above.  Does it make you feel good about your "improvement" of the bug-reporting
dialog?

Stefan's only reply was "don't do it if it hurts"!  Sheesh - don't report bugs?
Why not replace the body of `report-emacs-bug' to just display a message: "Don't
be stupid, Newbie; we don't want no stinkin bug reports".

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> The user must edit the From field, errors are raised, etc.  It is
> practically impossible to send a bug report from emacs -Q now.

Nothing has changed in the From header generation as far as I know.

> 4. "Configure outgoing SMTP in Emacs? (y or n) n
>
> (But why does the UI switch from yes/no to y/n?  I already pointed this out...)

It isn't really a yes-or-no kinda question.

> 5. "Sending failed; no recipients"
>
> That, is spite of the fact that the To: field has bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org.  What
> happened?  What do you do now?
>
> No pop up of email client, nada.

That sounds like a bug.  What's your `sendmail-query-once-function'
after saying "n"?

> Configure outgoing SMTP in Emacs? (y or n)  y
> Setting `sendmail-query-once-function' temporarily since "emacs -q" would
> overwrite customizations
> smtpmail-send-it: Sending failed; no recipients

Here is says that you typed "y", not "n" as you said earlier.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Drew Adams]

> > 5. "Sending failed; no recipients"
> >
> > That, is spite of the fact that the To: field has 
> > bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org.  What happened?  What do you do now?
> > No pop up of email client, nada.
> 
> That sounds like a bug.  What's your `sendmail-query-once-function'
> after saying "n"?

I just now repeated the recipe.  You can do the same, BTW.

 sendmail-query-once-function is a variable defined in `sendmail.el'.
 Its value is mailclient-send-it

> > Configure outgoing SMTP in Emacs? (y or n)  y
> > Setting `sendmail-query-once-function' temporarily since 
> > "emacs -q" would overwrite customizations
> > smtpmail-send-it: Sending failed; no recipients
> 
> Here is says that you typed "y", not "n" as you said earlier.

I thought I typed `n'.  Perhaps there is a different bug if you type `y'?

Anyway, I just did it again, from emacs -Q.  This time I saw again the "Args out
of range: 105527, 105528" error.  Here is the tail of *Messages*:

report-emacs-bug-hook: Please edit the From address and try again
Sending...
Sending via mail...
Configure outgoing SMTP in Emacs? (y or n)  n
Setting `sendmail-query-once-function' temporarily since "emacs -q" would
overwrite customizations
apply: Args out of range: 105527, 105528

3419 is `point-max' in buffer `*unsent mail to...', BTW.  The original buffer,
from which I invoked `report-emacs-bug', has length 105526.


Also, BTW, this is the message ID:

 Message-ID:
<kryr553sfkv.fsf@MYMACHINE.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>

Who knows what kryr553sfkv.fsf is.  MYMACHINE is my machine name.  Are users
required to set the mail-host-address also now?  How many hoops will you force
users to jump through, just to support your new "feature"?

----

But let me try once more, this time with debug-on-error = t. This is the
backtrace when I hit `n' to the SMTP config question:

Debugger entered--Lisp error: (args-out-of-range 105527 105528)
#[binary gibberish...
apply(#[(beg end delete) binary gibberish...
#[binary gibberish...
  filter-buffer-substring(105528 105527)
  copy-region-as-kill(105528 105527)
  kill-ring-save(105528 105527)
  clipboard-kill-ring-save(105528 105527)
  mailclient-send-it()
  sendmail-query-once()
  message-send-mail(nil)
  message-send-via-mail(nil)
  message-send(nil)
  message-send-and-exit(nil)
  call-interactively(message-send-and-exit nil nil)

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> I just now repeated the recipe.  You can do the same, BTW.

I can't.  I don't have Windows.

> I thought I typed `n'.  Perhaps there is a different bug if you type `y'?

Yes.  Fixed now, though.

> Who knows what kryr553sfkv.fsf is.  MYMACHINE is my machine name.  Are users
> required to set the mail-host-address also now?  How many hoops will you force
> users to jump through, just to support your new "feature"?

What are you on about?

> But let me try once more, this time with debug-on-error = t. This is the
> backtrace when I hit `n' to the SMTP config question:
>
> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (args-out-of-range 105527 105528)
> #[binary gibberish...
> apply(#[(beg end delete) binary gibberish...
> #[binary gibberish...
>   filter-buffer-substring(105528 105527)
>   copy-region-as-kill(105528 105527)
>   kill-ring-save(105528 105527)
>   clipboard-kill-ring-save(105528 105527)
>   mailclient-send-it()
>   sendmail-query-once()

Does mailclient work for you otherwise if not called from "emacs -Q"?
If so, the fix I applied earlier today may fix this, too.  If not, I
have no idea what it could mean.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Drew Adams]

> > I just now repeated the recipe.  You can do the same, BTW.
> 
> I can't.  I don't have Windows.

Then I guess you'll either have to take my word for it or the bug will have to
remain open and the behavior broken until someone else on Windows can repeat the
recipe.

> > Who knows what kryr553sfkv.fsf is.  MYMACHINE is my machine 
> > name.  Are users required to set the mail-host-address also now?
> What are you on about?

Let me put it differently.  Is it correct that the message ID have such a value?
I don't know - just letting you know what it is.

> > Debugger entered--Lisp error: (args-out-of-range 105527 105528)
> 
> Does mailclient work for you otherwise if not called from "emacs -Q"?

Yes. But I was asked again about SMTP, even though I had already answered `n'
once before in a previous non-emacs -Q session.

When I tried this with a previous build it did remember and didn't ask the
question again thereafter.  But now it asked me again. Perhaps I need to go
through this with each new build?  I see the value saved in my `custom-file', so
I don't understand why I was asked.  And doing it a second time, in a new
session, I was not asked.  ?

> If so, the fix I applied earlier today may fix this, too.

Let's hope so.

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> > Who knows what kryr553sfkv.fsf is.  MYMACHINE is my machine 
>> > name.  Are users required to set the mail-host-address also now?
>> What are you on about?
>
> Let me put it differently.  Is it correct that the message ID have
> such a value?  I don't know - just letting you know what it is.

I have made no change to the Message-ID code in a decade.

> Yes. But I was asked again about SMTP, even though I had already answered `n'
> once before in a previous non-emacs -Q session.
>
> When I tried this with a previous build it did remember and didn't ask
> the question again thereafter.  But now it asked me again. Perhaps I
> need to go through this with each new build?  I see the value saved in
> my `custom-file', so I don't understand why I was asked.  And doing it
> a second time, in a new session, I was not asked.  ?

No, it should respect whatever `sendmail-query-once-function' is set to.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Jason Rumney]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> Let me put it differently.  Is it correct that the message ID have
> such a value?

The Message-Id is irrelevant if you are using mailclient-send-it. It has
this value for the same reason as the From field has a bogus value -
because mail is not properly configured in this emacs session.

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Drew Adams]

> > Let me put it differently.  Is it correct that the message ID have
> > such a value?
> 
> The Message-Id is irrelevant if you are using mailclient-send-it. It has
> this value for the same reason as the From field has a bogus value -
> because mail is not properly configured in this emacs session.

OK, thanks.

And I notice that if Emacs already knows that the current user is using
`mailclient-send-it' (e.g. saved customization from answering `n' about SMTP
config), then we do not show that field at all, which is good (helps avoid
confusion).

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Drew Adams]

Can you please fix this bug once and for all?  It's been a month now...

Users with `emacs -Q' should not need to edit the `From' field if they are going
to use mailclient anyway.

This was a silly, misguided, and retrograde change to Emacs.  It should be
reverted as soon as possible.  It just acts as one more confusing obstacle,
especially for newbies.

As in the past, users should simply be asked whether they want to send the
message - nothing more.

If you want to encourage users to configure mail for SMTP or anything else, that
should be outside the context of a bug report.  That is, unless configuration is
absolutely necessary before the message can be sent.  But that should be
determined only after an attempt is made to send the message.  And mailclient
should be the default, in any case.

If you want to push Emacs users to also use Gnus or a particular mail
client/method, please do it outside of Emacs bug reporting.

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Drew Adams]

ping

> Can you please fix this bug once and for all?  It's been a 
> month now...

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> 5. "Sending failed; no recipients"

This has now been fixed.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> "Send this bug report to the Emacs maintainers (yes or no) " yes
>
> "Configure outgoing SMTP in Emacs (y or n) " n
>
> Args out of range: 102021, 102022

`(setq debug-on-error t)', repeat the bug and post the resulting
backtrace.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

bug#9074: 24.0.50; problems trying to mail bug report, again

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> If the user is going to answer `n' to the SMTP mail config question,
> in order to just use an outsider mailer (e.g. Outlook), then there is no
> reason for them to have to go through the silly dialog about "tickle me"
> and be told they must edit the `From:' field in order to be able to
> continue.

I agree.  If you're using the "system mailer" (i.e., sendmail or
mailclient), it should be pretty irrelevant whether Emacs knows your
real mail address.

So I think this check should be moved to a later point -- after it has
been decided to use the built-in SMTP support or using the system
mailer. 

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/