From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:51:27 -0500
Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org
Message-ID: <E1AmpuZ-0003Id-TT@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <877jzn2lk8.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org>
	<87oesmt61r.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1075535727 24390 80.91.224.253 (31 Jan 2004 07:55:27 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:55:27 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 31 08:55:24 2004
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1AmpyO-0007lJ-00
	for <emacs-devel@deer.gmane.org>; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:55:24 +0100
Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1AmpyO-0004Eb-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:55:24 +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 1Ampxf-0005rT-3y
	for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:54:39 -0500
Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AmpwQ-0005V2-TW
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:53:22 -0500
Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ampvf-0005AC-Tf
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:53:08 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ampvd-00059P-9g
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:52:33 -0500
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AmpuZ-0003Id-TT; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:51:27 -0500
Original-To: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>
In-reply-to: <87oesmt61r.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob
	Browning on Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:27:12 -0600)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2
Precedence: list
List-Id: Emacs development discussions.  <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:19590

    Personally, I can't imagine it being OK to leave things with potential
    for silent mail loss, especially not as the default, even if fixing it
    might introduce a 5 minute delay.

I set up the code the way it is because it caused a delay of a few
seconds when everything was working properly.  I found that unacceptable.