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: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:25:57 -0500
Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org
Message-ID: <E1Ak60D-0000DZ-K9@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <877jzn2lk8.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org>
	<E1AjEYN-0001wf-Gx@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<ilun08hnd7y.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
	<E1Ajk4L-0005Zz-CO@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<iluwu7j7qbv.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1074882635 32247 80.91.224.253 (23 Jan 2004 18:30:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:30:35 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 23 19:30:31 2004
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1Ak64d-0000wE-00
	for <emacs-devel@deer.gmane.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:30:31 +0100
Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1Ak64d-0005ij-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:30:31 +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 1Ak62x-0003rL-9L
	for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:28:47 -0500
Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ak615-0003Az-Lt
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:26:51 -0500
Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ak60S-0002wD-W6
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:26:44 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ak60H-0002ot-No
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:26:01 -0500
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ak60D-0000DZ-K9; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:25:57 -0500
Original-To: Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>
In-reply-to: <iluwu7j7qbv.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> (message from Simon
	Josefsson on Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:09:40 +0100)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2
Precedence: list
List-Id: Emacs development discussions.  <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:19459
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:19459

    I suspect that if the MTA is trying to deliver the message to its
    final destination, then it may hang regardless of what MTA is used.

I would expect people to design an MTAs not to wait very long
in the process that you created to send the mail.  If sendmail
does this badly, does that mean they all do?