From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: PJ Weisberg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: smtp crap Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:00:45 -0700 Message-ID: References: <8739f4kzp3.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87ipo0p1bc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <58C87CB9F44943A7BBE78F2D6B62A850@us.oracle.com> <83botsf06d.fsf@gnu.org> <83k48cxj85.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1318348868 8246 80.91.229.12 (11 Oct 2011 16:01:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:01:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, ding@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , larsi@gnus.org, Eli Zaretskii , miles@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 11 18:01:03 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 1RDelK-0005Ml-3F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:01:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58538 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDelI-0007Bv-Uh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:01:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:47177) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDelC-00074v-MS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:00:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDelA-0003Us-Lk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:00:54 -0400 Original-Received: from smtpauth14.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net ([64.202.165.39]:52720) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDelA-0003U9-2p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:00:52 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 25994 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2011 16:00:48 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (74.125.82.169) by smtpauth14.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.39) with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2011 16:00:48 -0000 Original-Received: by wyh15 with SMTP id 15so4614208wyh.0 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.223.17.91 with SMTP id r27mr1694415faa.20.1318348845951; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.223.83.10 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:00:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-Received-From: 64.202.165.39 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:144897 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:80299 Archived-At: On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Drew Adams wrote: > But MOST importantly, what about reporting bugs with `emacs -Q'? > > That is the real problem here, and the one that you keep ignoring. =A0Ins= tead, you > keep focusing on the problem of customization, which is, relatively speak= ing, no > big deal (assuming you finish fixing the repeated-interrogation bugs). No, that's not the real problem. There are two problems: (1) What should Emacs do when the user asks it to send an email? (2) What should Emacs do when the user asks it to report a bug? This series of questions is appropriate in scenario 1, but not in scenario 2. (Especially with `emacs -Q', which causes an already-configured Emacs to explicitly ignore its configuration.) The fact that the two scenarios are related is an implementation detail of report-emacs-bug. The argument Drew is making would disappear instantly if report-emacs-bug sent an HTTP POST request, for instance. -PJ