From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#20211: 24.4; sendmail.el Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:20:14 +0200 Message-ID: <5517DFEE.9010408@gmx.at> References: <55167B8B.6030203@gmx.at> <5516C81B.3040400@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1427628090 6490 80.91.229.3 (29 Mar 2015 11:21:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 11:21:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 20211@debbugs.gnu.org To: Richard Ryniker Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 29 13:21:15 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YcBHE-00017l-Fh for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:21:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56683 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YcBHD-0007Ut-OI for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 07:21:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54290) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YcBH9-0007S6-Hl for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 07:21:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YcBH4-00042d-H1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 07:21:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:49572) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YcBH4-00042Z-E0 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 07:21:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YcBH3-0000ju-Qu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 07:21:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 11:21:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 20211 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 20211-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B20211.14276280372785 (code B ref 20211); Sun, 29 Mar 2015 11:21:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 20211) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Mar 2015 11:20:37 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39348 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YcBGf-0000ip-0T for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 07:20:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:50713) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YcBGb-0000iT-Hb for 20211@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 07:20:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [178.190.17.197] ([178.190.17.197]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MGWR2-1Ygb6G2KnI-00DKKl; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:20:24 +0200 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:cpBqd0Jc0uOVKZ2kho5l3woCUedirHiGcr2f2vrgXW/FMWtYGrc 4zeLL5iZXy0RC70Tba8JS8F7vfXfBmSijjoxJ3ZIJ04bzViWqNm6DfbZNZCg9RT4w4GeZLb JCPzYiXCmfyRmzvPQTF7zxsvGuhAEJ17ibkVEH7S8YycBeyU3efKWYuKCsbZfFDUUrGf7TC dP8abEnxe/EFMpKu3CUjQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:101017 Archived-At: > Does the following look sensible to you? Yes, thanks. Two minor nitpicks: I'd put a newline after (if error and use `buffer-live-p' instead of `bufferp'. Though it's not likely someone might have killed errbuf in between and we want to avoid a confusing error message in that case. And please provide a suitable ChangeLog entry. > Should we endeavor > to confirm good behavior when mail-interactive is true and the > sendmail program fails? I'm not sure I understand you here. IIUC "when mail-interactive is true and the sendmail program fails" we show the error. Don't we? martin