From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: kill ring menu Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:13:29 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200204291313.g3TDDTe19528@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <1020022891.27106.142.camel@space-ghost> <87k7qr18k7.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <1020055064.28798.320.camel@space-ghost> <871yczksra.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <1020058652.27106.353.camel@space-ghost> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1020086139 22931 127.0.0.1 (29 Apr 2002 13:15:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:15:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 172B0F-0005xk-00 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:15:39 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 172B40-00062d-00 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:19:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 172Azu-0002lr-00; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:15:18 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 172AyB-0002fv-00 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:13:31 -0400 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3TDDTe19528; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:13:29 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: Colin Walters Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:3399 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:3399 > messages. Or I have to set up a complex email filtering system, which > also takes my time and is difficult to manage. There is no reason why the deletion of duplicates can't be made the default. I wish more people used it because it is The Right Thing and because it would put more pressure onto people sending CFPs to reuse the same Message-ID rather than to say "we apologize if you receive this a hundred times". Stefan