From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: RE: smtp crap Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:08:12 -0700 Message-ID: References: <8739f4kzp3.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87ipo0p1bc.fsf@stupidchicken.com><58C87CB9F44943A7BBE78F2D6B62A850@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1318284512 1278 80.91.229.12 (10 Oct 2011 22:08:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:08:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , emacs-devel@gnu.org, ding@gnus.org, 'Miles Bader' To: "'Stefan Monnier'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 11 00:08:25 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 1RDO1I-0003z2-MU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:08:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53118 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDO1I-00071O-7K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:08:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:39863) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDO1E-000718-Um for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:08:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDO1D-0007Oq-QU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:08:20 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]:56764) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDO1C-0007OS-Ht; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:08:18 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p9AM8FLL026700 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:08:17 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9AM8E3f015848 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:08:15 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt118.oracle.com (abhmt118.oracle.com [141.146.116.70]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p9AM89KP001699; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:08:09 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:08:09 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcyHlOjymimTCqrPRcCY006h0Cg/7AAAF87A X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090209.4E936CD1.0088:SCFMA922111,ss=1,re=-4.000,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 148.87.113.117 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:144830 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:80270 Archived-At: > > Even if it works flawlessly, this "feature" should _not_ be > > the default. > > As long as we don't have a better solution, yes it should be > the default. We had a better solution before. Why should the default be changed to something worse, just because you don't have something better? What improvement is represented by this annoyance and error-prone user interaction? It's pretty clear what the loss is. What's the gain? I haven't heard one argument (reason) in support of the changed behavior. > And for Emacs-24 we won't have a better solution so it > will be the default. Poor Emacs. Maybe Emacs 24 should wait until you can "configure" a sane UI for bug reporting. > mailclient-send-it is not a satisfactory solution, it's a workaround. Seems satisfactory enough on Windows. Did any Windows user complain about it and ask that we move to the present situation? Why not do what Eli suggested, as a compromise (while waiting for your "better solution")? Workaround? Did you say "workaround"? What do you call the present kludge? > > In particular, it is ridiculous that a user trying to send > > a simple bug report with `emacs -Q' has to run through the > > extra hurdle of this inane, possibly confusing, and error-prone > > dialog ("yes"; edit the `From' line; "n"). I cannot > > believe this silliness has gone on this long already. > > Editing the From is indeed a bug that we have to fix before > the release. Maybe you could submit a patch for it? Here's the patch: Revert to what we had before. What we have now is no improvement. Have we heard from anyone who has mentioned how this change has improved their life? Did any users even request this change? > > Nowadays especially, users already have email configured on > > whatever devices they use. > > Yes, e.g. configured on Emacs. What does that mean? > > Why are we going backward, not forward? Why is it suddenly > > important for every user to be interrogated (even once!) > > about configuring email for Emacs? (How > > did we get by all these years without this annoyance?) > > We got by all these years because both SMTP and /usr/sbin/sendmail > actually used to work or fail reliably. Nowadays byzantine errors are > the rule for them so we need user input to figure out what to do. OK, blame it on SMTP and sendmail. Email worked or failed reliably ... back in the 1980s (mostly worked, and well). But nowadays, because things are so much more advanced and complex, we need to alert Emacs users whenever they try to submit a bug report, notifying them that we don't really know what mail configuration they want, and asking them to tell us. Sheesh. "Workaround"?!? Please, find a junior high-school kid to implement a sane Emacs bug-reporting UI for next weekend's take-home project. Sending a bug report was NOT broken. Now it is.