From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Simon Josefsson Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior? Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:26:03 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <877jzn2lk8.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <16405.8086.195634.248486@chiark.greenend.org.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1075145811 28274 80.91.224.253 (26 Jan 2004 19:36:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:36:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 26 20:36:37 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 1AlCXF-0004t5-00 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:36:37 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AlCXE-0005DJ-00 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:36:36 +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 1AlCTc-0007uL-5Q for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:32:52 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AlCOT-0005FW-Q6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:27:33 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AlCNp-0004pj-VA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:27:25 -0500 Original-Received: from [217.13.230.178] (helo=yxa.extundo.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.24) id 1AlCNp-0004ff-0v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:26:53 -0500 Original-Received: from latte.josefsson.org (yxa.extundo.com [217.13.230.178]) (authenticated bits=0) by yxa.extundo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0QJQYAn031017 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:26:34 +0100 Original-To: Stefan Monnier X-Hashcash: 0:040126:monnier@iro.umontreal.ca:a82cc54dee3fcdda X-Hashcash: 0:040126:emacs-devel@gnu.org:eaf12e9e63bf0787 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "26 Jan 2004 13:22:44 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) 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:19498 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:19498 Stefan Monnier writes: >> I see much discussion, but few solutions. > > I see Ian's part of the discussion as just saying "we should always use > mail-interactive and set sendmail's arguments to queuing". Sounds like > a good solution to me. I missed the conclusion, sorry. Does all MTAs support that option? Doesn't this require that the system is running a queue poll every now and then? It isn't uncommon to see workstations that doesn't run sendmail -q or the equivalent (Windows comes to mind, not that this fact alone should influence us). I'm worried that the change will require environmental behaviour that emacs didn't require before, thus potentially introducing new breakage. > Your message seems to be about something else, but it also leads to the > need to run sendmail not-in-the-background, so it goes in the > same direction, i.e.: run sendmail in the foreground (telling it to queue > the message) and if there's an error analyse it and report it clearly to > the user (typically tellnig it that the delivery failed or that he should > use smtpmail.el). Yes. The approaches are not mutually exclusive, and in fact probably can be combined with some benefits.