From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior? Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:49:54 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <877jzn2lk8.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <16401.5059.249741.523854@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <16404.63472.223534.499091@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <876E93D9-5003-11D8-BC55-00039363E640@swipnet.se> <16405.6371.146753.920453@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1075229907 32375 80.91.224.253 (27 Jan 2004 18:58:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:58:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jas@extundo.com, jan.h.d@swipnet.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 27 19:58:21 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AlYPl-0005hy-00 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:58:21 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AlYPl-0002LC-00 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:58:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AlYNy-0000I3-NM for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:56:30 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AlYIq-00066X-C5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:51:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AlYI9-0005nJ-1Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:51:00 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AlYI8-0005ml-FZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:50:28 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.24) id 1AlYHa-0005ku-GY; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:49:54 -0500 Original-To: Ian Jackson In-reply-to: <16405.6371.146753.920453@chiark.greenend.org.uk> (message from Ian Jackson on Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:40:51 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:19515 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:19515 Currently there are large numbers of places where Emacs sometimes loses mail ! If the mail gets lost, it is the mailer that loses it. That is not Emacs's fault. Emacs uses -oem -odb by default (when mail-interactive is nil) and that says to start another process to deliver the mail. -oem says to send the user mail to report any failure. If the mailer obeys those options, you won't lose mail without a failure report. Some seem to be suggesting that when mail-interactive is nil, Emacs could use -oem -odb, but even so wait for sendmail to terminate. I think that is what we used to do; but Emacs often had to wait for a substantial time, and I found that intolerable. Perhaps nowadays the wait will be smaller and acceptable. So people might want to try this change and see if it is fast enough. *** sendmail.el.~1.274.~ Sat Jan 3 09:10:43 2004 --- sendmail.el Tue Jan 27 13:04:02 2004 *************** *** 820,826 **** (require 'mail-utils) (let ((errbuf (if mail-interactive (generate-new-buffer " sendmail errors") ! 0)) (tembuf (generate-new-buffer " sendmail temp")) (multibyte enable-multibyte-characters) (case-fold-search nil) --- 820,826 ---- (require 'mail-utils) (let ((errbuf (if mail-interactive (generate-new-buffer " sendmail errors") ! nil0)) (tembuf (generate-new-buffer " sendmail temp")) (multibyte enable-multibyte-characters) (case-fold-search nil)