From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Alfred M\. Szmidt" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Recognize mbox files? Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:27:47 +0100 Message-ID: <1234884467.428644.9675.nullmailer@beryx.hq.kred> Reply-To: ams@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1234884500 6550 80.91.229.12 (17 Feb 2009 15:28:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:28:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: xma@gnu.org, cyd@stupidchicken.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J\. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 17 16:29:35 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LZRsz-0005W7-Kp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:29:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44329 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LZRrf-0005sJ-H7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:28:03 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LZRrX-0005qh-Gj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:27:55 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LZRrV-0005pw-I4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:27:54 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39937 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LZRrV-0005po-Dw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:27:53 -0500 Original-Received: from hq.kreditor.se ([213.136.42.58]:2378 helo=auxid.hq.kred) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LZRrT-0001i6-8B; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:27:51 -0500 Original-Received: by auxid.hq.kred (Postfix, from userid 118) id 825CD13799EA; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:27:50 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from beryx.hq.kred (unknown [10.16.0.106]) by auxid.hq.kred (Postfix) with SMTP id 6BC3F137996A; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:27:50 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: (nullmailer pid 9676 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:27:47 -0000 In-reply-to: "stephen@xemacs.org"'s message of Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:17:22 +0900 Original-References: X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:109130 Archived-At: > What would happen if you have a legal non-mbox file, that > contains X-RMAIL-ATTRIBUTES? In any case, surely this check would be optional. I hope not, then it makes rmail not usable for most users. What is wrong with using real local variables? Either by adding it to the first message, or always adding "-*- rmail -*-" to X-RMAIL-...? That way a user could disable rmail explictly for a file, or enable it by adding -*- rmail -*- to it. This would then work exactly as it did for RMAIL/BABYL. Without adding specifc rmail hacks to other parts of emacs.