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: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:52:21 -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 1075399274 25647 80.91.224.253 (29 Jan 2004 18:01:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:01:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jan.h.d@swipnet.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org, ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk, jas@extundo.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 29 19:01:09 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 1AmGTV-0001Ws-00 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:01:09 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AmGTU-0004pE-00 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:01:08 +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 1AmGQ2-0003Mg-HQ for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:57:34 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AmGO6-00035d-7k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:55:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AmGMC-0002Ju-Ev for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:53:54 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AmGLx-00026e-96 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:53:21 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.24) id 1AmGKz-0001Fg-IC; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:52:21 -0500 Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on 27 Jan 2004 16:03:21 -0500) 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:19553 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:19553 Ian suggested to use -oeq which hands the message to sendmail in the foreground (with mail-interactive set to t) so sendmail gets a chance to complain if it has no space in the queue or if there's no queue and no hub, or if there's no queue and the hub is not accessible. When mail-interactive is t, Emacs uses -oep. That seems right. The intention of mail-interactive = t is that you should get to see errors right away, as much as possible, and this is what does that. If people find that there is reasonable performance waiting for sendmail to finish with -oem and -odb for mail-interactive = nil, we could conceivably try moving further to -oeq in that case.