From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Glenn Morris Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs/lisp/mail rmail.el Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:22:57 -0400 Message-ID: <95tz5thrim.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1237253000 21027 80.91.229.12 (17 Mar 2009 01:23:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:23:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 17 02:24:36 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 1LjO2i-00054g-Jb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:24:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60576 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LjO1M-0006QW-0M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:23:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LjO1H-0006QQ-KX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:23:03 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LjO1C-0006QE-9F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:23:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49108 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LjO1C-0006QB-3D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:22:58 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:60760) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LjO1B-0004R0-Tl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:22:57 -0400 Original-Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LjO1B-0006ve-BR; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:22:57 -0400 X-Spook: Ron Brown infowar investigation cryptographic bomb AVN X-Ran: 5[rl`LM3O;Npy/uP]ek(jifRoQhzpjbqHp+`L.FIOV>z\u#`@^KAi+1HNvQzYLY(^E'"6# X-Hue: yellow X-Attribution: GM In-Reply-To: (Richard M. Stallman's message of "Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:15:22 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:109662 Archived-At: Richard M Stallman wrote: > This change is inconsistent with Emacs 22, and the documentation in > rmail.el and rmail.texi. > > The problem has to be fixed. What problem? > The behavior as of yesterday is so inconvenient that I can't believe > anyone wants it. In what way? AFAIK, nobody complained about it in Emacs 22. If there is a problem, I think you should add elements to the default of rmail-retry-ignored-headers (and add a :version tag), rather than using rmail-ignored-headers for this. > I just looked at the old Rmail code and saw this: > > (rmail-clear-headers "^sender:\\|^return-path:\\|^received:") > > which had got lost. Would you prefer that fix? What do you mean, "had got lost"? Equivalent code is there in rmail-retry-failure in the trunk, right where you made your change: (rmail-delete-headers "^\\(sender\\|return-path\\|received\\):")