From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Bob Proulx Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Emacs interface to Recoll other than Helm? Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 13:19:26 -0700 Message-ID: <20171107130630498581412@bob.proulx.com> References: <87375qf6my.fsf@iac.es> <87mv3yjc5l.fsf@iac.es> <877ev2yq05.fsf@iac.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1510086005 24813 195.159.176.226 (7 Nov 2017 20:20:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 20:20:05 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Angel de Vicente Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 07 21:19:54 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eCALh-0005xK-DV for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Nov 2017 21:19:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55702 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eCALo-0007di-OE for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Nov 2017 15:20:00 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54352) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eCALN-0007dc-3b for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Nov 2017 15:19:34 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eCALI-0007GA-9j for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Nov 2017 15:19:33 -0500 Original-Received: from havoc.proulx.com ([96.88.95.61]:35110) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eCALI-0007FK-45 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Nov 2017 15:19:28 -0500 Original-Received: from joseki.proulx.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by havoc.proulx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F2FDD5; Tue, 7 Nov 2017 13:19:26 -0700 (MST) Original-Received: from hysteria.proulx.com (hysteria.proulx.com [192.168.230.119]) by joseki.proulx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52ECB217DF; Tue, 7 Nov 2017 13:19:26 -0700 (MST) Original-Received: by hysteria.proulx.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4886E2DC5E; Tue, 7 Nov 2017 13:19:26 -0700 (MST) Mail-Followup-To: Angel de Vicente , help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877ev2yq05.fsf@iac.es> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 96.88.95.61 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:114791 Archived-At: Angel de Vicente wrote: > Sorry for the double post. I thought the post with the attached images > had been rejected so I post it again with the images as links to > some URL in the Internet. The rest of the message is basically > the same. Thank you for the second message with the links. For many people (me!) it is much easier to deal with that than inline images. As to the original large message with the inline images... Not to cause stress but to communicate the problems. Those large messages are always very painful for the lists.gnu.org mailing list server to process when sending to a large mailing list. This is a small list as there are only 1410 subscribed members. (And that does not count the people reading from the associated newsgroup through the mail2news gateway.) Other lists are truly huge with many more members. When sending inline images to a large mailing list the total bandwidth is a huge multiplier. Often things are very delayed due to those messages. An 800K message expands to 1.1T of consumed bandwidth to the entire list for just that one single message. Often the mailing list server will be running far behind trying to push bandwidth through the network. Which means we have been forced to start capping the size of messages on many mailing lists. Also for anyone using their mobile cell data plan those large messages eat up the data limit to the data cap very quickly. Large messages will either be automatically rejected or manually rejected or manually approved. One of the list moderators must have decided to send that one on to the list. If I had been at the keyboard reviewing that held message I would have rejected it. You would have gotten a rejection notice with an explanation and hints as to what could be done. Because of the human factor the actions taken are not always exactly the same. Just giving a view into the behind the scenes operations... :-) Bob