From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: mailabbrev.el, mailalias.el and related package Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:13:03 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <200202142113.PAA01753@moose.dms.auburn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1013722049 28197 195.204.10.66 (14 Feb 2002 21:27:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Feb 2002 21:27:29 GMT Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby2.netfonds.no with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16bTPc-0007Kh-00 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:27:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16bTDr-0003Z4-00; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:15:19 -0500 Original-Received: from manatee.dms.auburn.edu ([131.204.53.104]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16bTBo-0003Sz-00 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:13:12 -0500 Original-Received: from moose.dms.auburn.edu (moose.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.3]) by manatee.dms.auburn.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21975 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:13:08 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by moose.dms.auburn.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA01753; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:13:03 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: moose.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: quimby.gnus.org gmane.emacs.devel:1148 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1148 I am a little bit concerned about the way I (mis)formulated certain things in my original message. Expressions such as, for instance, "these and plenty of related bugs" may give the (mistaken) impression that the mailabbrev code is just totally littered with bugs, which would be unfair to the author. I apologize if this is the impression I created. While it is true that there actually are plenty of bugs related to mailabbrev, they all originate from a limited number of problems with the mailabbrev code. These problems nearly all concern the interaction between mailabbrev and sendmail-mailalias (that interaction is tricky, that is exactly why I would prefer one unified system), as well as interactions between mailabbrev and other parts of Emacs. I am not familiar with the exact history of mailabbrev.el, but if it were actually not originally written for Emacs, but would instead be an adaptation of a package written originally for XEmacs, then this would explain a lot of things that otherwise seem strange to me. Except for the bugs, which are nearly all interaction problems with the rest of Emacs, the original mailabbrev.el is actually is a very useful package. I believe however that it can only be made to interact well with the rest of Emacs by making some fundamental changes of the type I made. As mentioned before, in spite of these changes, my rewrite preserves a lot of the original mailabbrev code. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel