From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eric Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#40151: 28.0.50; Remove Date header from message-draft-headers Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 13:57:05 -0700 Message-ID: <875zeyycbi.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <87mu8bymrx.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="46554"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 40151@debbugs.gnu.org To: James Cloos Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 20 21:58:18 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jFOif-000C1s-Ly for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:58:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59106 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jFOie-0004jS-OM for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:58:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40979) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jFOiR-0004i1-ME for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:58:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jFOiQ-0000hE-4m for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:58:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:39746) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jFOiQ-0000h6-16 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:58:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jFOiP-0003lj-Vj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:58:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eric Abrahamsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 20:58:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 40151 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 40151-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B40151.158473783514416 (code B ref 40151); Fri, 20 Mar 2020 20:58:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 40151) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Mar 2020 20:57:15 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45719 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jFOhf-0003kR-37 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:57:15 -0400 Original-Received: from ericabrahamsen.net ([52.70.2.18]:57796 helo=mail.ericabrahamsen.net) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jFOhd-0003kE-Li for 40151@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:57:14 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (c-73-254-86-141.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [73.254.86.141]) (Authenticated sender: eric@ericabrahamsen.net) by mail.ericabrahamsen.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29AC0FAB67; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 20:57:06 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: (James Cloos's message of "Fri, 20 Mar 2020 15:40:44 -0400") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:177578 Archived-At: James Cloos writes: > there should be an easy way to avoid this change. on a per message basis. Providing some per-message mechanism is beyond the scope of this change, and I think would have to be tackled separately, but if you think this change is bad and should be reverted, I'd be happy to hear why, and discuss it. I probably should have left the report up for a while before pushing it.