From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior? Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:26:44 -0600 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <878yjokp0r.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> References: <877jzn2lk8.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87oesmt61r.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1075570119 2893 80.91.224.253 (31 Jan 2004 17:28:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:28:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 31 18:28:34 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Amyv4-00052h-00 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:28:34 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Amyv4-0008TD-00 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:28:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Amytz-00042k-56 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:27:27 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Amyts-0003zy-Cu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:27:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AmytM-0003tw-0Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:27:19 -0500 Original-Received: from [66.93.216.237] (helo=defaultvalue.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AmytL-0003tF-C6; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:26:47 -0500 Original-Received: from raven.i.defaultvalue.org (raven.i.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81AFF403D; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:26:45 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by raven.i.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C10C081085; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:26:44 -0600 (CST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:51:27 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:19595 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:19595 Richard Stallman writes: > I set up the code the way it is because it caused a delay of a few > seconds when everything was working properly. I found that unacceptable. I suspect we just disagree about the default. As I've mentioned, I'd favor arranging things so that mail loss is less likely by default, even if doing so might introduce a few scond delay. Of course we'd also need to provide good documentation for the alternative setting for those systems and people for whom the delay is a problem. However, I also got the impression from the current disussion that we might have other alternatives now. For example, are (most) MTAs better about queueing now, and can emacs itself handle queueing, and if either of these things is true, then can we arrange for alternatives that satisfy (nearly) everyone now? -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4