bug#74857: 30.0.92; Gnus nnatom: url protocol

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Daniel Semyonov <daniel@dsemy.com>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  Christopher Howard
>  <christopher@librehacker.com>,  74857@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 23:12:31 +0200
> 
> >>>>> Stefan Kangas writes:
> 
>     > Daniel Semyonov via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of
>     > text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> writes:
> 
>     >> This is a known issue (also noted in the manual), though the message
>     >> returned should be more descriptive.
>     >> 
>     >> The returned message is emitted by Gnus when it fails to get info for
>     >> the server from the backend, and should use the value of
>     >> 'backend-status-string' ('nnatom-status-string' in this case); this
>     >> works on a normal session on my end (returning a message set in
>     >> 'nnatom--read-feed'), but fails with emacs -Q, also returning "Couldn't
>     >> request list: nil".
>     >> I half suspect this is a bug with Gnus trying to read the status string
>     >> of the wrong server (and not a bug in nnatom), but I'll look into it.
>     >> 
>     >> As for why it isn't allowed in the first place, Gnus unfortunately
>     >> breaks when ":" is used in server addresses due to regular expressions
>     >> used in various internal functions, though I don't remember the details.
> 
>     > Does nnatom use http or https by default in these situations?
> 
> nnatom always uses https, feeds available only over http are not
> supported at all currently (unless they are downloaded separately, and
> added to nnatom as a file instead of a URL).
> This is something I wanted to address at some point but honestly forgot
> about it, though I'm not sure how important it is TBH; adding a server
> variable controlling this would be fairly easy to do, I think.
> 
> In any case I still haven't had time to look into the issue with the
> wrong returned message, I'll look into both issues in a few days
> (hopefully).

Daniel, did you have time to look into this?