From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: MAIL_USE_FLOCK and Debian.
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:16:57 -0500
Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org
Message-ID: <E18lOTR-0003zM-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <87lm0ijabw.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org>
	<E18k7iI-0006zu-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<87znoxi93a.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org>
	<E18kfZi-0007eI-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<87ptpqhqjp.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org>
	<87el657f8y.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1045639065 29570 80.91.224.249 (19 Feb 2003 07:17:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 07:17:45 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 18lOUB-0007gm-00
	for <emacs-devel@main.gmane.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:17:43 +0100
Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 18lOh6-00087e-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:31:04 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13)
	id 18lOTm-0001yn-09
	for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:17:18 -0500
Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13)
	id 18lOTU-0001tJ-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:17:00 -0500
Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13)
	id 18lOTS-0001s0-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:17:00 -0500
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13)
	id 18lOTS-0001rb-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:16:58 -0500
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10)
	id 18lOTR-0003zM-00; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:16:57 -0500
Original-To: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>
In-reply-to: <87el657f8y.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob
	Browning on Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:58:05 -0600)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Emacs development discussions. <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:11752
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:11752

    However, if movemail only needs (and allows) two strategies normally,
    and if adding support for liblockfile to that set then covers all the
    relevant cases, then we should be OK.

I think so.