From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: RE: smtp crap Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:32:49 -0700 Message-ID: <447111A2EC694399973999C249891686@us.oracle.com> References: <8739f4kzp3.fsf@catnip.gol.com><87ipo0p1bc.fsf@stupidchicken.com><58C87CB9F44943A7BBE78F2D6B62A850@us.oracle.com><5997613E240C402C877A76C688773E65@us.oracle.com> <4D117A6B-0C4E-4F13-AC0E-C64DAB66C996@mit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1319668388 12889 80.91.229.12 (26 Oct 2011 22:33:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:33:08 +0000 (UTC) To: "'chad'" , "'Emacs devel'" , Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 27 00:33:04 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJC1v-0003iT-9V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:33:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34228 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJC1u-0000xI-QT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:33:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55202) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJC1r-0000x2-BP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:33:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJC1q-0003XR-5m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:32:59 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]:46156) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJC1p-0003XJ-TY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:32:58 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p9QMWtbM029186 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:32:56 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9QMWsNp021439 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:32:54 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt113.oracle.com (abhmt113.oracle.com [141.146.116.65]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p9QMWmNS008422; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:32:48 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:32:48 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <4D117A6B-0C4E-4F13-AC0E-C64DAB66C996@mit.edu> Thread-Index: AcyUKQ43Uqv75SWxRk6W4yh2644VqQAA7t9w X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4EA88A98.00AD:SCFMA922111,ss=1,re=-4.000,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 148.87.113.117 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:145607 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:80427 Archived-At: > > This is nothing but a regression - reporting a bug with `emacs > > -Q' has never been a problem in past releases. Why burden > > and confuse users now? > > I have personally seen dozens, of emacs bug reports sitting > stuck in local mail queues, with the user having no idea that > the bug never made it beyond the local workstation. > I am not the only one to report this kind of problem. > This type of configuration is (as near as we can tell) at > least as common now than it was then. Yes, that is undesirable. The solution is to simply _mention_ in the bug-report instructions that "IF you have no mail client and IF you have not yet configured Emacs itself as a mailer, THEN invoke `M-x XYZ' to so configure it.", where XYZ is a command that leads you down whatever configuration garden path is required. IOW, again, let users explicitly _ask_ to configure Emacs, if they want to. Forcing users to deal with this when they simply want to report a bug is not TRT. Yes, if there is no other choice for some user than to configure Emacs as a mailer right then and there, s?he will do so - it's enough to explain it. But all other users can pass over that information, which doesn't concern them. And with this approach _no_ user is then forced into a configuration dialog: they get that only on request. See the subject line, as a reminder of what this is about: Separate the dialog for email configuration from bug reporting. It's as simple as that. If some users might need to configure email before being able to report a bug, fine - they will. But that logical dependency does not require us to inflict an email configuration dialog on everyone.