message-mode is now default?

message-mode is now default?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

In the future, please make a public announcment of changes that affect
all users of emacs, and do a proper poll over what users actually
want.  Stefan, you have now atleast twice, made changes that affect
all users without the common courtesy of a discussion, Emacs is not
your personal playground!

Please also mention these types of changes in NEWS/ANTINEWS in the
future.

2009-07-14  Stefan Monnier  <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>

	* simple.el (mail-user-agent): Default to the upwardly-UI-compatible
	and more featureful message-mode.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Things that have now become broken because of this unannounced change,
and not fully thought through chance:

- any and all hooks and variable that one uses for mail are not
  working anymore, since message-mode is not compatible with
  mail-mode.  Causing massive breakage for anyone using mail-mode.

- message-mode does not use sendmail-function, causing once again
  breakage for anyone who wraps their mail around it.

message-mode is NOT backwards compatible with mail-mode, please change
it back to what it was.  This is a huge change, and should be
postponed for after the release, wit a proper discussion and poll.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Chong Yidong]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:

> This is a huge change, and should be postponed for after the release,

It isn't on the branch.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Teemu Likonen]

On 2009-07-17 09:01 (-0400), Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

> Things that have now become broken because of this unannounced change,
> and not fully thought through chance:
>
> - any and all hooks and variable that one uses for mail are not
>   working anymore, since message-mode is not compatible with
>   mail-mode. Causing massive breakage for anyone using mail-mode.
>
> - message-mode does not use sendmail-function, causing once again
>   breakage for anyone who wraps their mail around it.
>
> message-mode is NOT backwards compatible with mail-mode, please change
> it back to what it was. This is a huge change, and should be postponed
> for after the release, wit a proper discussion and poll.

That change is not in the branch that will become Emacs 23.1. So at
least to me it seems that it is "postponed" after the release of 23.1.

The "proper discussion" probably means this list's usual conservatism
but in any case, for such discussion and a poll, here's my vote:

    I support making message-mode the default.

(And I think Chong and Stefan are doing a great job.)

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Stefan Monnier]

> Things that have now become broken because of this unannounced change,

Actually, it was announced, tho maybe indirectly.

> - any and all hooks and variable that one uses for mail are not
>   working anymore, since message-mode is not compatible with
>   mail-mode.  Causing massive breakage for anyone using mail-mode.

Please use M-x report-emacs-bug.

> - message-mode does not use sendmail-function, causing once again
>   breakage for anyone who wraps their mail around it.

Please use M-x report-emacs-bug.

> message-mode is NOT backwards compatible with mail-mode,

Again, M-x report-emacs-bug.

> This is a huge change,

No, it's definitely not.

> and should be postponed for after the release,

As others have pointed out, you're confused on this point.


        Stefan

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>
> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:53:23 -0400
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > Things that have now become broken because of this unannounced change,
> 
> Actually, it was announced, tho maybe indirectly.

Not really.  You sneaked a single sentence into an unrelated thread
talking about some unrelated bug.  That's hardly an honest
announcement, given the heated discussion that recently.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Richard Stallman]

    - message-mode does not use sendmail-function, causing once again
      breakage for anyone who wraps their mail around it.

That would certainly break it for me.

I think this change should be reverted.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>     - message-mode does not use sendmail-function, causing once again
>       breakage for anyone who wraps their mail around it.
>
> That would certainly break it for me.
>
> I think this change should be reverted.

Any problems with message-mode should be fixed, of course, but it's
pretty clear that it's a better default.

One issue, of course is hook names; would it work to simply have
message-mode use the mail-mode hooks directly, and use variable-aliasing
to accommodate people that use the message-foo-hook names?

[I already call add-hook twice on all my various mail-related hooks, to
add them to _both mail-foo-hook and message-hook-hook.  So unless I
change something, they'd end up being added twice -- however, add-hook
suppresses duplicates, so I guess that wouldn't be an issue...]

-miles

-- 
"Suppose He doesn't give a shit?  Suppose there is a God but He
just doesn't give a shit?"  [George Carlin]

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Bastien]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>>     - message-mode does not use sendmail-function, causing once again
>>       breakage for anyone who wraps their mail around it.
>>
>> That would certainly break it for me.
>>
>> I think this change should be reverted.
>
> Any problems with message-mode should be fixed, of course, but it's
> pretty clear that it's a better default.

So why not making message-mode the default when those problems are
fixed?  Making message-mode the default is not a problem for people 
who already use it, it is a problem for people who are not using it.  
So making things smoother for these people is a good idea IMHO.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Byung-Hee HWANG]

Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com> writes:

> Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>>>     - message-mode does not use sendmail-function, causing once again
>>>       breakage for anyone who wraps their mail around it.
>>>
>>> That would certainly break it for me.
>>>
>>> I think this change should be reverted.
>>
>> Any problems with message-mode should be fixed, of course, but it's
>> pretty clear that it's a better default.
>
> So why not making message-mode the default when those problems are
> fixed?  Making message-mode the default is not a problem for people 
> who already use it, it is a problem for people who are not using it.  
> So making things smoother for these people is a good idea IMHO.

Hmm, i do not want to see this wasteful debate for a long time. So
totally i agree with Bastien ;; 

Sincerely,

-- 
Byung-Hee HWANG, KNU
∑ WWW: http://izb.knu.ac.kr/~bh/

"Play some for me. Or sing for me. You know, like the movies."
		-- Sharon Moore, "Chapter 12", page 155

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > Things that have now become broken because of this unannounced
   > change,

   Actually, it was announced, tho maybe indirectly.

As Miles noted, it was a single note in some message deeply burried in
a thread.  This is hardly a announcment for a change that affects all
users, and breaks so many things.

   Please use M-x report-emacs-bug.

My mail-mode setup was broken due to this change, and I could not use
report-emacs-bug so I sent it here by jumping around hoops.

   > This is a huge change,

   No, it's definitely not.

You might not feel that it does this, since you do not use mail-mode.
But for people who do use mail-mode, it breaks their whole mail setup.
A setup that has in many cases worked for over 10 years without
change.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > This is a huge change, and should be postponed for after the
   > release,

   It isn't on the branch.

Thank you for correcting me.  I still think that this change should
wait after the release, and be discussed properly before it is
actually changed.  It is not the first time a change that affects many
people has creept in without discussion.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com>
> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:51:12 +0200
> Cc: ams@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > Any problems with message-mode should be fixed, of course, but it's
> > pretty clear that it's a better default.
> 
> So why not making message-mode the default when those problems are
> fixed?  Making message-mode the default is not a problem for people 
> who already use it, it is a problem for people who are not using it.  
> So making things smoother for these people is a good idea IMHO.

I had a few spare moments, so I compared mail-mode and message-mode.
The differences I found are below.

Disclaimers:

    Please note that I don't necessarily think all of them should be
    changed to match mail-mode, in order for message-mode to be
    compatible.  But I do think they all need to be _considered_.

    I also don't pretend to have found all the important differences,
    nor that all my conclusions below are correct.

    Finally, what's below is based on inspection of the *Help* buffer
    and defcustoms; I didn't actually try using message-mode, and
    don't know anything about it, except what I saw just now.

Here's what I found:

 . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-f moves to FCC; in message-mode C-c C-f C-f
   moves to Followup-To, and C-c C-f C-w moves to FCC.

 . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-a moves to Mail-Reply-To; in message-mode
   C-c C-f C-a runs the command
   `message-generate-unsubscribed-mail-followup-to' and there doesn't
   seem to be a command to move to Mail-Reply-To.

 . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-l moves to Mail-Followup-To; in message-mode
   C-c C-f C-m moves to Mail-Followup-To and C-c C-f C-l is undefined

 . In mail-mode C-c C-t moves to message text; in message-mode this is
   on C-c C-b, while C-c C-t runs `message-insert-to'.

 . In mail-mode C-c C-v runs `mail-sent-via'; in message-mode it runs
   `message-delete-not-region'.

 . mail-mode runs `text-mode-hook' and `mail-mode-hook'; message-mode
   says it runs `message-mode-hook' "in addition to any hooks its
   parent mode `text-mode' might have run" -- it isn't clear to me if
   these two are compatible wrt what text-mode does.

 . message-mode overrides the following global key bindings:

   - C-a runs `message-beginning-of-line'

   - TAB runs `message-tab'

   - M-; runs `comment-region'

 . message-mode's default value of `message-generate-new-buffers'
   seems to generate buffer names in a way that is different from what
   mail-mode does.

 . message-mode's default value of `message-fill-column' overrides the
   global value of `fill-column'.

 . mail-mode uses `mail-setup-hook'; message-mode uses
   `message-setup-hook'.

 . mail-mode uses `mail-yank-hooks'; message-mode doesn't appear to
   have such a facility.

 . message-mode's default value of `message-citation-line-format'
   seems to produce different results compared to what `r' in Rmail
   produces.

 . message-mode's default values of `message-yank-cited-prefix' and
   `message-yank-empty-prefix' are different from the results produced
   by the default value of `mail-yank-prefix', and the names of the
   options are also different.

 . message-mode's default value of `message-signature' is different
   from mail-mode's `mail-signature', and the names of the options are
   different.

 . mail-mode uses `mail-signature-file'; message-mode uses
   `message-signature-file'.

 . mail-mode uses `mail-default-directory' for auto-saving mail
   buffers; message-mode uses `message-auto-save-directory', and the
   default values are also different.

 . mail-mode uses `mail-mode-syntax-table'; message-mode uses
   `message-mode-syntax-table.  The default values are also
   different.

 . mail-mode uses `mail-send-hook'; message-mode uses
   `message-send-mail-hook' and `message-send-hook'.

 . mail-mode's `mail-bury' tries to show the Rmail buffer if
   `mail-bury-selects-summary' is non-nil.  message-mode's
   `message-bury' doesn't seem to have a comparable feature.  (This is
   important when reading mail on a text terminal.)

 . message-mode doesn't seem to have an equivalent of `mail-use-dsn'.

HTH

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Stefan Monnier]

> So why not making message-mode the default when those problems are
> fixed?

The long painful thread included various questions asking in which way
message-mode was different, and nobody was able to answer
those questions.  It's only by making it default that we can find out,
it seems.

> Making message-mode the default is not a problem for people
> who already use it, it is a problem for people who are not using it.
> So making things smoother for these people is a good idea IMHO.

This is a development branch.  Breakage should be expected.


        Stefan

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:48:21 -0400
> Cc: ams@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
> 
> This is a development branch.  Breakage should be expected.

There are quite a few people who use the development branch for their
day-to-day work.  Breaking their MUA, which is by far the most
frequently used Emacs application, should not be done easily.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

 > There are quite a few people who use the development branch for their
 > day-to-day work.  Breaking their MUA, which is by far the most
 > frequently used Emacs application, should not be done easily.

Changing the default doesn't break Mail mode at all!

What it does is require one who wants to use Mail mode in the
customary way to put his cursor at the end of the following sexp and
type C-x C-e:

(progn
  (find-file user-init-file)
  (save-excursion
    (goto-char (point-min))
    (insert "(setq mail-user-agent 'sendmail-user-agent)\n"))
  (save-buffer)
  (setq mail-user-agent 'sendmail-user-agent)
  (message "init file edited; please review for style and/or VC commit."))

(Note!  GPL-licensed code, with emphasis on the NO WARRANTEE clause.)

On the other hand, unless and until sendmail.el morphs into a
RFC-conformant MUA, it is very desirable that it not be default.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>
>  > There are quite a few people who use the development branch for their
>  > day-to-day work.  Breaking their MUA, which is by far the most
>  > frequently used Emacs application, should not be done easily.
>
> Changing the default doesn't break Mail mode at all!
>
> What it does is require one who wants to use Mail mode in the
> customary way to put his cursor at the end of the following sexp and
> type C-x C-e:
>
> (progn
>   (find-file user-init-file)
>   (save-excursion
>     (goto-char (point-min))
>     (insert "(setq mail-user-agent 'sendmail-user-agent)\n"))
>   (save-buffer)
>   (setq mail-user-agent 'sendmail-user-agent)
>   (message "init file edited; please review for style and/or VC commit."))
>
> (Note!  GPL-licensed code, with emphasis on the NO WARRANTEE clause.)

What's wrong with

M-x customize-variable RET mail-user-agent RET

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Lennart Borgman]

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 5:33 PM, David Kastrup<dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> What's wrong with
>
> M-x customize-variable RET mail-user-agent RET


There will be fewer testers of message-mode.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Kastrup writes:
 > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

 > > What it does is require one who wants to use Mail mode in the
 > > customary way to put his cursor at the end of the following sexp and
 > > type C-x C-e:
 > >
 > > (progn ...)

 > What's wrong with
 > 
 > M-x customize-variable RET mail-user-agent RET

My way saves a dozen or more keystrokes, and avoids annoying extra
confirmations.  :-)

No big deal.  Either way, newbies get message-mode as the default, and
the *very* experienced mail-mode users get mail-mode.  It would have
been nice to warn them a little more loudly, I guess, but it's more
important that newbies get a default mode that allows them to attach
files and doesn't send 8-bit characters in the headers over the wire.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,
>     emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:11:05 +0900
> 
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
> 
>  > There are quite a few people who use the development branch for their
>  > day-to-day work.  Breaking their MUA, which is by far the most
>  > frequently used Emacs application, should not be done easily.
> 
> Changing the default doesn't break Mail mode at all!
> 
> What it does is require one who wants to use Mail mode in the
> customary way to put his cursor at the end of the following sexp and
> type C-x C-e:

To do that, one needs to know that the defaults have changed.  Not
everybody examines all the change logs each time she syncs with the
repository.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

 > To do that, one needs to know that the defaults have changed.  Not
 > everybody examines all the change logs each time she syncs with the
 > repository.

Yeah, well, Some Horrible Inexplicable Thing[tm] happens.  Stefan may
owe you an apology for not properly announcing the change; that is a
matter for Emacs custom, in which I am not an expert.  It doesn't
justify the panic-mongering that you and AMS have engaged in.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Richard Stallman]

    > Making message-mode the default is not a problem for people
    > who already use it, it is a problem for people who are not using it.
    > So making things smoother for these people is a good idea IMHO.

    This is a development branch.  Breakage should be expected.

The supposed argument for this change was that Message mode was a
compatible extension of Mail mode.  Now that someone listed dozens of
incompatibilities, this response seems to disregard the fact that that
argument is not valid.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Making message-mode the default is not a problem for people
>> who already use it, it is a problem for people who are not using it.
>> So making things smoother for these people is a good idea IMHO.

>     This is a development branch.  Breakage should be expected.

> The supposed argument for this change was that Message mode was a
> compatible extension of Mail mode.

Actually, the reason for this change is that message-mode is a better
default, since it provides the features that many users expect (such as
proper handling of non-ASCII chars and the ability to add attachments).

The "compatible extension" argument will be needed when/if we decide to
drop mail-mode.

> Now that someone listed dozens of incompatibilities, this response
> seems to disregard the fact that that argument is not valid.

I'm indeed happy to see that this change finally got someone to dig into
the differences, which will hopefully allow us to merge mail-mode and
message-mode at some point.


        Stefan

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>     This is a development branch.  Breakage should be expected.
>
> The supposed argument for this change was that Message mode was a
> compatible extension of Mail mode.  Now that someone listed dozens of
> incompatibilities, this response seems to disregard the fact that that
> argument is not valid.

The argument is not invalid.  In the most important senses -- the
general UI and method of operation -- message-mode is very much
compatible.  There are clearly details where the two modes differ, but
the list of "incompatibilities" are all basically trivial (and easily
fixed) or simply silly (WTF cares if the generated buffer names are
different?  We could easily change them, but we _shouldn't_ because
message-mode actually uses far more useful buffer names).

Of course, the most important audience affected by the default setting
-- novice/casual users -- simply won't care or even notice 99% of the
issues mentioned.

There are clearly things that need to be ironed out, so we should iron
them out.

The hook situation seems one of the more important issues; is anybody
going to comment on my suggestion for merging the hooks?

-Miles

-- 
Hers, pron. His.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > So why not making message-mode the default when those problems
   > are fixed?

   The long painful thread included various questions asking in which
   way message-mode was different, and nobody was able to answer those
   questions.

Several people already noted why they prefer mail-mode, that you do
not agree with these opinions is not a reason to dismiss them as
"nobody was able to answer".

Eli has now listed many UI changes that differ between mail-mode and
message-mode, including code changes.

Clearly, message-mode and mail-mode are different enough that making
message-mode default was a premature change, so the right thing to do
is change it back.  Those who wish to make message-mode behave more
like mail-mode can then work on that.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
>> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,
>>     emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:11:05 +0900
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>> 
>>  > There are quite a few people who use the development branch for their
>>  > day-to-day work.  Breaking their MUA, which is by far the most
>>  > frequently used Emacs application, should not be done easily.
>> 
>> Changing the default doesn't break Mail mode at all!
>> 
>> What it does is require one who wants to use Mail mode in the
>> customary way to put his cursor at the end of the following sexp and
>> type C-x C-e:
>
> To do that, one needs to know that the defaults have changed.  Not
> everybody examines all the change logs each time she syncs with the
> repository.

I find it somewhat amusing that people act all surprised when they
update daily from the Emacs trunk and suddenly something changes.
That's the whole point of frequent trunk synchronizations, isn't it?

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: message-mode is now default?

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:

>    > So why not making message-mode the default when those problems
>    > are fixed?
>
>    The long painful thread included various questions asking in which
>    way message-mode was different, and nobody was able to answer those
>    questions.
>
> Several people already noted why they prefer mail-mode, that you do
> not agree with these opinions is not a reason to dismiss them as
> "nobody was able to answer".
>
> Eli has now listed many UI changes that differ between mail-mode and
> message-mode, including code changes.
>
> Clearly, message-mode and mail-mode are different enough that making
> message-mode default was a premature change, so the right thing to do
> is change it back.

As long as message-mode is more in line with what a newcomer would
expect, I don't see why we should strive to retain the previous
behavior.

Bringing message-mode in line with mail-mode makes only sense where
message-mode is clearly inferior.

> Those who wish to make message-mode behave more like mail-mode can
> then work on that.

But those who wish to make message-mode behave more like mail-mode are
apparently those who have been using mail-mode up to now.  And their
only incentive to work on message-mode is when message-mode is the
default.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Bastien]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> As long as message-mode is more in line with what a newcomer would
> expect, I don't see why we should strive to retain the previous
> behavior.

People are not trying to retain the previous behavior.

People are taking care of making the switch to message-mode a smooth
process.  RMS expressed concerns about the code in message-mode.  AMS
expressed concerns about the fact that the switch was not explicitely
(or not clearly) announced.  These two concerns are just discarded by
the maintainers with the argument: "Making it the default is the best
way to make people work on message-mode".


I don't think forcing stuff is the right way to deal with defaults.

Same for `line-move-visual'.  Requests for a poll have been silently
dismissed.  Of course everyone can put (setq line-move-visual nil) in
her ~/.emacs, but if "customizing" and "debugging" are now synonyms,
Emacs should rather not be advertized as something that everyone wants
(or need?) to customize.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Bringing message-mode in line with mail-mode makes only sense where
   message-mode is clearly inferior.

You may consider message-mode inferior, someone else like myself might
not.


message-mode should atleast follow the standard conventions for
hooking in different methods for sending mail, it doesn't.  That way,
it will work for those who prefer mail-mode, and those who prefer
message-mode.  Otherwise, it will break things as I reported before.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

I found another way message-mode differs from mail-mode, it does not
use mailalias.el, so that is yet another UI difference.  So one cannot
use define-mail-alias, or ~/.mailrc.

Can someone please revert the change for now, so that one can take a
proper look at how to make message-mode default and make it actually
work with the rest of emacs?  This includes things like updating the
manual, proper NEWS entries, but also making message-mode work with
other modes like mailalias.el

Re: message-mode is now default?

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:

> I found another way message-mode differs from mail-mode, it does not
> use mailalias.el, so that is yet another UI difference.  So one cannot
> use define-mail-alias, or ~/.mailrc.

Huh?  I use alias completion (from .mailrc) all the time in message
mode.

> Can someone please revert the change for now, so that one can take a
> proper look at how to make message-mode default and make it actually
> work with the rest of emacs?  This includes things like updating the
> manual, proper NEWS entries, but also making message-mode work with
> other modes like mailalias.el

That's what the trunk is for.  I don't see how a switch back of the
default would aid in any way.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Teemu Likonen]

On 2009-07-19 06:52 (-0400), Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

> I found another way message-mode differs from mail-mode, it does not
> use mailalias.el, so that is yet another UI difference.  So one cannot
> use define-mail-alias, or ~/.mailrc.

I use ~/.mailrc with message-mode, and it works. Aliases are expanded
automatically when the cursor is on appropriate headers.

Differences between mail-mode and message-mode (was: message-mode is now default?)

[Reiner Steib]

On Sat, Jul 18 2009, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> I had a few spare moments, so I compared mail-mode and message-mode.
> The differences I found are below.
>
> Disclaimers:
>
>     Please note that I don't necessarily think all of them should be
>     changed to match mail-mode, in order for message-mode to be
>     compatible.  But I do think they all need to be _considered_.

Thanks for your analysis.  No matter in which direction a change will
go, this list will be a good basis for NEWS entries (either for
mail-mode or message-mode users).

>     I also don't pretend to have found all the important differences,
>     nor that all my conclusions below are correct.

>     Finally, what's below is based on inspection of the *Help* buffer
>     and defcustoms; I didn't actually try using message-mode, and
>     don't know anything about it, except what I saw just now.
>
> Here's what I found:
[ key bindings ]

Obviously the key bindings cannot be resolved without a change for
either mail-mode or message-mode users.  Maybe set the bindings
depending on some compatibility variable?

>  . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-f moves to FCC; in message-mode C-c C-f C-f
>    moves to Followup-To, and C-c C-f C-w moves to FCC.
>
>  . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-a moves to Mail-Reply-To; in message-mode
>    C-c C-f C-a runs the command
>    `message-generate-unsubscribed-mail-followup-to' and there doesn't
>    seem to be a command to move to Mail-Reply-To.
>
>  . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-l moves to Mail-Followup-To; in message-mode
>    C-c C-f C-m moves to Mail-Followup-To and C-c C-f C-l is undefined
>
>  . In mail-mode C-c C-t moves to message text; in message-mode this is
>    on C-c C-b, while C-c C-t runs `message-insert-to'.
>
>  . In mail-mode C-c C-v runs `mail-sent-via'; in message-mode it runs
>    `message-delete-not-region'.

What is "Sent-Via" about?  Neither Google nor grepping through the
RFCs gave me any useful result. [1]

>  . mail-mode runs `text-mode-hook' and `mail-mode-hook'; message-mode
>    says it runs `message-mode-hook' "in addition to any hooks its
>    parent mode `text-mode' might have run" -- it isn't clear to me if
>    these two are compatible wrt what text-mode does.

This text is from `derived-mode-make-docstring'.  message-mode is
derived from text-mode.

>  . message-mode overrides the following global key bindings:
>
>    - C-a runs `message-beginning-of-line'

This is somewhat similar to C-a in the minibuffer.  If you want to
move beyond the mail header (e.g. "Subject: "), just press C-a again.

>    - TAB runs `message-tab'

`message-tab' expand partially typed headers,
cf. `message-completion-alist'.

>    - M-; runs `comment-region'

AFAICS, in mail-mode, `M-;' runs `comment-dwim', which first asks for
a comment syntax since none is defined.

>  . message-mode's default value of `message-generate-new-buffers'
>    seems to generate buffer names in a way that is different from what
>    mail-mode does.

AFAICS, if I do `M-x message-mail RET', I get also get a "*mail*"
buffer.

>  . message-mode's default value of `message-fill-column' overrides the
>    global value of `fill-column'.

I used the recommendation from the relevant RFCs or GNKSA docs, IIRC.
Unlike `fill-column' which affects the user (and his co-workers, ...),
the fill column in mails (and news) should try to make sense for the
recipients.

>  . mail-mode uses `mail-setup-hook'; message-mode uses
>    `message-setup-hook'.

On Sat, Jul 18 2009, Miles Bader wrote:
| One issue, of course is hook names; would it work to simply have
| message-mode use the mail-mode hooks directly, and use variable-aliasing
| to accommodate people that use the message-foo-hook names?

Miles, is `defvaralias' what you have in mind?

  @@ -905,12 +923,13 @@
   (defcustom message-setup-hook nil
     "Normal hook, run each time a new outgoing message is initialized.
   The function `message-setup' runs this hook."
  [...] 
  +(defvaralias 'mail-setup-hook 'message-setup-hook)
  [...] 

>  . mail-mode uses `mail-yank-hooks'; message-mode doesn't appear to
>    have such a facility.

,----
| ;; FIXME make it really obsolete.
| (defvar mail-yank-hooks nil
|   "Obsolete hook for modifying a citation just inserted in the mail buffer.
| Each hook function can find the citation between (point) and (mark t).
| And each hook function should leave point and mark around the citation
| text as modified.
| 
| This is a normal hook, misnamed for historical reasons.
| It is semi-obsolete and mail agents should no longer use it.")
`----

Should we care about it if is obsolete?

>  . message-mode's default value of `message-citation-line-format'
>    seems to produce different results compared to what `r' in Rmail
>    produces.

AFAICS, `r' doesn't cite at all and produce not citation line (neither
does `C-c C-y' (`mail-yank-original').

>  . message-mode's default values of `message-yank-cited-prefix' and
>    `message-yank-empty-prefix' are different from the results produced
>    by the default value of `mail-yank-prefix', and the names of the
>    options are also different.

You mean the indentation?  I think message mode's default are much
better.

>  . message-mode's default value of `message-signature' is different
>    from mail-mode's `mail-signature', 

I think using ~/.signature by default is reasonable.

>    and the names of the options are different.

See above -> Alias?

>  . mail-mode uses `mail-signature-file'; message-mode uses
>    `message-signature-file'.

See above -> Alias?

>  . mail-mode uses `mail-default-directory' for auto-saving mail
>    buffers; message-mode uses `message-auto-save-directory', 

See above -> Alias?

>    and the default values are also different.

message-mode tries to write all it's files under ~/Mail .  Many users
like to sync their mail stuff between different computers.
message-mode's default makes this easier.

>  . mail-mode uses `mail-mode-syntax-table'; message-mode uses
>    `message-mode-syntax-table.  The default values are also
>    different.

I don't know why message mode additionally contains `>' and `<'.
message-mode also copies `text-mode-syntax-table'.

>  . mail-mode uses `mail-send-hook'; message-mode uses
>    `message-send-mail-hook' and `message-send-hook'.

See above -> Alias?

>  . mail-mode's `mail-bury' tries to show the Rmail buffer if
>    `mail-bury-selects-summary' is non-nil.  message-mode's
>    `message-bury' doesn't seem to have a comparable feature.  (This is
>    important when reading mail on a text terminal.)

Probably we should call code like `mail-bury' to `message-bury' if
`rmail-summary-buffer' is non-nil.

>  . message-mode doesn't seem to have an equivalent of `mail-use-dsn'.

We could add the `mail-use-dsn' code to `message-send-mail-with-sendmail'.

Bye, Reiner.

[1] http://www.google.com/search?q=%2B"Sent-Via"+mail+header+rfc

    $ dpkg -l 'doc-rfc-*'
    [...]
    ii  doc-rfc-0001-0999        20030621-1               Other RFCs
    ii  doc-rfc-1000-1999        20030621-1               Other RFCs
    ii  doc-rfc-2000-2999        20030621-1               Other RFCs
    ii  doc-rfc-3000-3999        20030621-1               Other RFCs
    ii  doc-rfc-experimental     20030621-1               Experimental RFCs
    ii  doc-rfc-fyi-bcp          20030621-1               FYI and BCP RFCs
    ii  doc-rfc-misc             20030621-1               Miscellaneous RFCs
    ii  doc-rfc-old-std          20030621-1               Old Standard RFCs
    ii  doc-rfc-std              20030621-1               Standard RFCs
    ii  doc-rfc-std-proposed     20030621-1               Proposed Standard RFCs
    
    /usr/share/doc/RFC$ zgrep -ie Sent-Via */*.txt.gz
    /usr/share/doc/RFC$ 
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Differences between mail-mode and message-mode - sending mail (was: message-mode is now default?)

[Reiner Steib]

On Sun, Jul 19 2009, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

> message-mode should atleast follow the standard conventions for
> hooking in different methods for sending mail, it doesn't.  

Please describe what these "standard conventions" are and what doesn't
work (for you).

> That way, it will work for those who prefer mail-mode, and those who
> prefer message-mode.  Otherwise, it will break things as I reported
> before.

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: Differences between mail-mode and message-mode

[Sven Joachim]

On 2009-07-19 13:41 +0200, Reiner Steib wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 18 2009, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>>  . In mail-mode C-c C-v runs `mail-sent-via'; in message-mode it runs
>>    `message-delete-not-region'.
>
> What is "Sent-Via" about?  Neither Google nor grepping through the
> RFCs gave me any useful result. [1]

See also bug #1776¹ about that header.  Probably only the long-term users
of mail-mode know the answer, if anyone.

Sven


¹ http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1776

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Stefan Monnier]

> I found another way message-mode differs from mail-mode, it does not

Please use M-x report-emacs-bug for all those issues you encounter,
thank you.


        Stefan

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:54:13 -0400
> Cc: bastienguerry@googlemail.com, ams@gnu.org, miles@gnu.org,
> 	emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> I'm indeed happy to see that this change finally got someone to dig into
> the differences, which will hopefully allow us to merge mail-mode and
> message-mode at some point.

You are welcome.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org>
> CC: stephen@xemacs.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:52:29 -0400
> 
> I found another way message-mode differs from mail-mode, it does not
> use mailalias.el, so that is yet another UI difference.  So one cannot
> use define-mail-alias, or ~/.mailrc.

I think it does work, albeit maybe not through mailalias.el.  If you
invoke "M-x message-mode RET" in "emacs -Q", don't you see it saying
it loads your ~/.mailrc?

Re: Differences between mail-mode and message-mode

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, ding@gnus.org
> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:41:32 +0200
> 
> >  . mail-mode runs `text-mode-hook' and `mail-mode-hook'; message-mode
> >    says it runs `message-mode-hook' "in addition to any hooks its
> >    parent mode `text-mode' might have run" -- it isn't clear to me if
> >    these two are compatible wrt what text-mode does.
> 
> This text is from `derived-mode-make-docstring'.  message-mode is
> derived from text-mode.

So is mail-mode, but the blurb is somehow still different, I don't
know why.

> >  . mail-mode uses `mail-yank-hooks'; message-mode doesn't appear to
> >    have such a facility.
> 
> ,----
> | ;; FIXME make it really obsolete.
> | (defvar mail-yank-hooks nil
> |   "Obsolete hook for modifying a citation just inserted in the mail buffer.
> | Each hook function can find the citation between (point) and (mark t).
> | And each hook function should leave point and mark around the citation
> | text as modified.
> | 
> | This is a normal hook, misnamed for historical reasons.
> | It is semi-obsolete and mail agents should no longer use it.")
> `----
> 
> Should we care about it if is obsolete?

It depends whether people are using it or not, IMO.  And we usually
declare a feature obsolete formally, and keep it that way for some
time, before removing it.

> >  . message-mode's default value of `message-citation-line-format'
> >    seems to produce different results compared to what `r' in Rmail
> >    produces.
> 
> AFAICS, `r' doesn't cite at all and produce not citation line (neither
> does `C-c C-y' (`mail-yank-original').

I mean the "John Doe writes" stuff vs the "From: ..." etc. produced by
Rmail's `r'.

Re: Differences between mail-mode and message-mode

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:51:44 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Cc: ding@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > >  . message-mode's default value of `message-citation-line-format'
> > >    seems to produce different results compared to what `r' in Rmail
> > >    produces.
> > 
> > AFAICS, `r' doesn't cite at all and produce not citation line (neither
> > does `C-c C-y' (`mail-yank-original').
> 
> I mean the "John Doe writes" stuff vs the "From: ..." etc. produced by
> Rmail's `r'.

Sorry, you are right, of course: It's C-c C-y that produces "From:...".

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Richard Stallman]

    The hook situation seems one of the more important issues; is anybody
    going to comment on my suggestion for merging the hooks?

I see nothing wrong in merging the hooks.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Richard Stallman]

    I'm indeed happy to see that this change finally got someone to dig into
    the differences, which will hopefully allow us to merge mail-mode and
    message-mode at some point.

Anything is possible, but it would take some doing to convince me to
stand for that.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > I found another way message-mode differs from mail-mode, it does
   > not

   Please use M-x report-emacs-bug for all those issues you encounter,
   thank you.

As I already mentioned, I cannot due to your change.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Teemu Likonen]

On 2009-07-20 08:33 (-0400), Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

>    > I found another way message-mode differs from mail-mode, it does
>    > not
>
>    Please use M-x report-emacs-bug for all those issues you encounter,
>    thank you.
>
> As I already mentioned, I cannot due to your change.

Let's recall what the change did:


    diff --git a/lisp/simple.el b/lisp/simple.el
    index 15536bc..f087189 100644
    --- a/lisp/simple.el
    +++ b/lisp/simple.el
    @@ -5425,7 +5425,7 @@ See also `mail-user-agent' concerning sending mail."
       :version "21.1"
       :group 'mail)

    -(defcustom mail-user-agent 'sendmail-user-agent
    +(defcustom mail-user-agent 'message-user-agent
       "Your preference for a mail composition package.
     Various Emacs Lisp packages (e.g. Reporter) require you to compose an
     outgoing email message.  This variable lets you specify which


What things does this change prevent you from doing? If "M-x
report-emacs-bug" does not work anymore revert the change in your
personal settings:

    (setq mail-user-agent 'sendmail-user-agent)

And then use "M-x report-emacs-bug".

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Miles Bader]

Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> writes:
> What things does this change prevent you from doing? If "M-x
> report-emacs-bug" does not work anymore revert the change in your
> personal settings:
>
>     (setq mail-user-agent 'sendmail-user-agent)
>
> And then use "M-x report-emacs-bug".

He knows that, he's just being pissy.

-Miles

-- 
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Reiner Steib]

On Mon, Jul 20 2009, Teemu Likonen wrote:

>     -(defcustom mail-user-agent 'sendmail-user-agent
>     +(defcustom mail-user-agent 'message-user-agent
>        "Your preference for a mail composition package.
>      Various Emacs Lisp packages (e.g. Reporter) require you to compose an
>      outgoing email message.  This variable lets you specify which

BTW,

  :version "21.1"
  
should be adjusted.

> What things does this change prevent you from doing? If "M-x
> report-emacs-bug" does not work anymore revert the change in your
> personal settings:
>
>     (setq mail-user-agent 'sendmail-user-agent)
>
> And then use "M-x report-emacs-bug".

You can also do M-x mail-mode RET (or M-x message-mode RET) to toggle
the mode while writing a message.

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Chong Yidong]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> writes:
>> What things does this change prevent you from doing? If "M-x
>> report-emacs-bug" does not work anymore revert the change in your
>> personal settings:
>>
>>     (setq mail-user-agent 'sendmail-user-agent)
>>
>> And then use "M-x report-emacs-bug".
>
> He knows that, he's just being pissy.

This is not a helpful comment.  Both sides of the argument need to calm
down.

It's understandable that long-time users of mail-mode would be annoyed
by this change.  Snide remarks won't persude them to help with the
matter at hand, which is ironing out the differences between mail-mode
and message mode.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Chong Yidong]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> In the most important senses -- the general UI and method of operation
> -- message-mode is very much compatible... There are clearly things
> that need to be ironed out, so we should iron them out.
>
> The hook situation seems one of the more important issues; is anybody
> going to comment on my suggestion for merging the hooks?

How troublesome would it be to make message-mode derived from mail-mode?
This would solve the hooks problem in a clean way.  It might also bring
other minor conveniences, such as letting us merge their syntax tables
and/or font-lock keywords.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Reiner Steib]

On Mon, Jul 20 2009, Chong Yidong wrote:

> Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> In the most important senses -- the general UI and method of operation
>> -- message-mode is very much compatible... There are clearly things
>> that need to be ironed out, so we should iron them out.
>>
>> The hook situation seems one of the more important issues; is anybody
>> going to comment on my suggestion for merging the hooks?
>
> How troublesome would it be to make message-mode derived from mail-mode?
> This would solve the hooks problem in a clean way.  

Wouldn't this imply that message-mode depends on mail-mode so we would
keep the (partial) code duplication?

> It might also bring other minor conveniences, such as letting us
> merge their syntax tables and/or font-lock keywords.

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

I do not have time to fix my mail setup right now, it is not as easy
as reverting mail-user-agent, if it was then I would have done it.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > I found another way message-mode differs from mail-mode, it does
   > not use mailalias.el, so that is yet another UI difference.  So
   > one cannot use define-mail-alias, or ~/.mailrc.

   I think it does work, albeit maybe not through mailalias.el.  If
   you invoke "M-x message-mode RET" in "emacs -Q", don't you see it
   saying it loads your ~/.mailrc?

No, and define-mail-alias does not work either for me.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Miles Bader]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:
>    > I found another way message-mode differs from mail-mode, it does
>    > not use mailalias.el, so that is yet another UI difference.  So
>    > one cannot use define-mail-alias, or ~/.mailrc.
>
>    I think it does work, albeit maybe not through mailalias.el.  If
>    you invoke "M-x message-mode RET" in "emacs -Q", don't you see it
>    saying it loads your ~/.mailrc?
>
> No, and define-mail-alias does not work either for me.

Hmm, if i do "emacs -nw -Q", and then "M-x message-mail", then I see:

    Parsing /home/soft1/miles/.mailrc... done

It then expands aliases if i do TAB or SPC (TAB always seems to work,
but SPC only works if abbrev-mode is enabled ... which it is by default).

[Oddly, if I do "M-x mail" instead (invoking mail-mode), it _doesn't_
expand aliases...]

-Miles

-- 
History, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are
brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Stefan Monnier]

> I do not have time to fix my mail setup right now, it is not as easy
> as reverting mail-user-agent, if it was then I would have done it.

By "use M-x report-emacs bug", I just meant:

  send it to bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org rather than emacs-devel@gnu.org and
  write it as a bug report (i.e. with a clear description of what you
  did, what happened, and what you expected to happen instead).

This of course presumes that if you can send to emacs-devel, you can
also send to bug-gnu-emacs.  If you really can send it to bug-gnu-emacs,
then send it to emacs-devel, but please write it as a bug-report.


        Stefan

Differences between mail-mode and message-mode (was: message-mode is now default?)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Reiner Steib writes:

 > Obviously the key bindings cannot be resolved without a change for
 > either mail-mode or message-mode users.  Maybe set the bindings
 > depending on some compatibility variable?

How about the presence of Newsgroups?

 > >  . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-f moves to FCC; in message-mode C-c C-f C-f
 > >    moves to Followup-To, and C-c C-f C-w moves to FCC.

Followup-To is rarely useful in a mail message.

 > >  . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-a moves to Mail-Reply-To; in message-mode
 > >    C-c C-f C-a runs the command
 > >    `message-generate-unsubscribed-mail-followup-to' and there doesn't
 > >    seem to be a command to move to Mail-Reply-To.

There is no Mail-Reply-To header in the mail standards AFAIK.

 > >  . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-l moves to Mail-Followup-To; in message-mode
 > >    C-c C-f C-m moves to Mail-Followup-To and C-c C-f C-l is undefined

There is no Mail-Followup-To header in the mail standards AFAIK,
although there is a plausible argument that it is useful for mailing
lists.

 > >  . In mail-mode C-c C-t moves to message text; in message-mode this is
 > >    on C-c C-b, while C-c C-t runs `message-insert-to'.
 > >
 > >  . In mail-mode C-c C-v runs `mail-sent-via'; in message-mode it runs
 > >    `message-delete-not-region'.
 > 
 > What is "Sent-Via" about?  Neither Google nor grepping through the
 > RFCs gave me any useful result. [1]
 > 
 > >  . mail-mode runs `text-mode-hook' and `mail-mode-hook'; message-mode
 > >    says it runs `message-mode-hook' "in addition to any hooks its
 > >    parent mode `text-mode' might have run" -- it isn't clear to me if
 > >    these two are compatible wrt what text-mode does.
 > 
 > This text is from `derived-mode-make-docstring'.  message-mode is
 > derived from text-mode.
 > 
 > >  . message-mode overrides the following global key bindings:
 > >
 > >    - C-a runs `message-beginning-of-line'
 > 
 > This is somewhat similar to C-a in the minibuffer.  If you want to
 > move beyond the mail header (e.g. "Subject: "), just press C-a again.
 > 
 > >    - TAB runs `message-tab'
 > 
 > `message-tab' expand partially typed headers,
 > cf. `message-completion-alist'.
 > 
 > >    - M-; runs `comment-region'
 > 
 > AFAICS, in mail-mode, `M-;' runs `comment-dwim', which first asks for
 > a comment syntax since none is defined.
 > 
 > >  . message-mode's default value of `message-generate-new-buffers'
 > >    seems to generate buffer names in a way that is different from what
 > >    mail-mode does.
 > 
 > AFAICS, if I do `M-x message-mail RET', I get also get a "*mail*"
 > buffer.
 > 
 > >  . message-mode's default value of `message-fill-column' overrides the
 > >    global value of `fill-column'.
 > 
 > I used the recommendation from the relevant RFCs or GNKSA docs, IIRC.
 > Unlike `fill-column' which affects the user (and his co-workers, ...),
 > the fill column in mails (and news) should try to make sense for the
 > recipients.
 > 
 > >  . mail-mode uses `mail-setup-hook'; message-mode uses
 > >    `message-setup-hook'.
 > 
 > On Sat, Jul 18 2009, Miles Bader wrote:
 > | One issue, of course is hook names; would it work to simply have
 > | message-mode use the mail-mode hooks directly, and use variable-aliasing
 > | to accommodate people that use the message-foo-hook names?
 > 
 > Miles, is `defvaralias' what you have in mind?
 > 
 >   @@ -905,12 +923,13 @@
 >    (defcustom message-setup-hook nil
 >      "Normal hook, run each time a new outgoing message is initialized.
 >    The function `message-setup' runs this hook."
 >   [...] 
 >   +(defvaralias 'mail-setup-hook 'message-setup-hook)
 >   [...] 
 > 
 > >  . mail-mode uses `mail-yank-hooks'; message-mode doesn't appear to
 > >    have such a facility.
 > 
 > ,----
 > | ;; FIXME make it really obsolete.
 > | (defvar mail-yank-hooks nil
 > |   "Obsolete hook for modifying a citation just inserted in the mail buffer.
 > | Each hook function can find the citation between (point) and (mark t).
 > | And each hook function should leave point and mark around the citation
 > | text as modified.
 > | 
 > | This is a normal hook, misnamed for historical reasons.
 > | It is semi-obsolete and mail agents should no longer use it.")
 > `----
 > 
 > Should we care about it if is obsolete?
 > 
 > >  . message-mode's default value of `message-citation-line-format'
 > >    seems to produce different results compared to what `r' in Rmail
 > >    produces.
 > 
 > AFAICS, `r' doesn't cite at all and produce not citation line (neither
 > does `C-c C-y' (`mail-yank-original').
 > 
 > >  . message-mode's default values of `message-yank-cited-prefix' and
 > >    `message-yank-empty-prefix' are different from the results produced
 > >    by the default value of `mail-yank-prefix', and the names of the
 > >    options are also different.
 > 
 > You mean the indentation?  I think message mode's default are much
 > better.
 > 
 > >  . message-mode's default value of `message-signature' is different
 > >    from mail-mode's `mail-signature', 
 > 
 > I think using ~/.signature by default is reasonable.
 > 
 > >    and the names of the options are different.
 > 
 > See above -> Alias?
 > 
 > >  . mail-mode uses `mail-signature-file'; message-mode uses
 > >    `message-signature-file'.
 > 
 > See above -> Alias?
 > 
 > >  . mail-mode uses `mail-default-directory' for auto-saving mail
 > >    buffers; message-mode uses `message-auto-save-directory', 
 > 
 > See above -> Alias?
 > 
 > >    and the default values are also different.
 > 
 > message-mode tries to write all it's files under ~/Mail .  Many users
 > like to sync their mail stuff between different computers.
 > message-mode's default makes this easier.
 > 
 > >  . mail-mode uses `mail-mode-syntax-table'; message-mode uses
 > >    `message-mode-syntax-table.  The default values are also
 > >    different.
 > 
 > I don't know why message mode additionally contains `>' and `<'.
 > message-mode also copies `text-mode-syntax-table'.
 > 
 > >  . mail-mode uses `mail-send-hook'; message-mode uses
 > >    `message-send-mail-hook' and `message-send-hook'.
 > 
 > See above -> Alias?
 > 
 > >  . mail-mode's `mail-bury' tries to show the Rmail buffer if
 > >    `mail-bury-selects-summary' is non-nil.  message-mode's
 > >    `message-bury' doesn't seem to have a comparable feature.  (This is
 > >    important when reading mail on a text terminal.)
 > 
 > Probably we should call code like `mail-bury' to `message-bury' if
 > `rmail-summary-buffer' is non-nil.
 > 
 > >  . message-mode doesn't seem to have an equivalent of `mail-use-dsn'.
 > 
 > We could add the `mail-use-dsn' code to `message-send-mail-with-sendmail'.
 > 
 > Bye, Reiner.
 > 
 > [1] http://www.google.com/search?q=%2B"Sent-Via"+mail+header+rfc
 > 
 >     $ dpkg -l 'doc-rfc-*'
 >     [...]
 >     ii  doc-rfc-0001-0999        20030621-1               Other RFCs
 >     ii  doc-rfc-1000-1999        20030621-1               Other RFCs
 >     ii  doc-rfc-2000-2999        20030621-1               Other RFCs
 >     ii  doc-rfc-3000-3999        20030621-1               Other RFCs
 >     ii  doc-rfc-experimental     20030621-1               Experimental RFCs
 >     ii  doc-rfc-fyi-bcp          20030621-1               FYI and BCP RFCs
 >     ii  doc-rfc-misc             20030621-1               Miscellaneous RFCs
 >     ii  doc-rfc-old-std          20030621-1               Old Standard RFCs
 >     ii  doc-rfc-std              20030621-1               Standard RFCs
 >     ii  doc-rfc-std-proposed     20030621-1               Proposed Standard RFCs
 >     
 >     /usr/share/doc/RFC$ zgrep -ie Sent-Via */*.txt.gz
 >     /usr/share/doc/RFC$ 
 > -- 
 >        ,,,
 >       (o o)
 > ---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/
 > 

Re: Differences between mail-mode and message-mode

[Reiner Steib]

On Wed, Jul 22 2009, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Reiner Steib writes:
>
>  > Obviously the key bindings cannot be resolved without a change for
>  > either mail-mode or message-mode users.  Maybe set the bindings
>  > depending on some compatibility variable?
>
> How about the presence of Newsgroups?

>  > >  . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-f moves to FCC; in message-mode C-c C-f C-f
>  > >    moves to Followup-To, and C-c C-f C-w moves to FCC.
>
> Followup-To is rarely useful in a mail message.

A message-mode buffer can be news, mail or both.  E.g. when adding Cc
to a news posting, the buffer also becomes a mail buffer (see
`message-news-p' and `message-mail-p').  I think modifying key
bindings depending on `message-news-p'/`message-mail-p' would be
confusing.

>  > >  . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-a moves to Mail-Reply-To; in message-mode
> There is no Mail-Reply-To header in the mail standards AFAIK.
>  > >  . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-l moves to Mail-Followup-To; in message-mode
>  > >    C-c C-f C-m moves to Mail-Followup-To and C-c C-f C-l is undefined
> There is no Mail-Followup-To header in the mail standards AFAIK,
> although there is a plausible argument that it is useful for mailing
> lists.

AFAIK, both aren't in any RFC.  But at least Mail-Followup-To is quite
useful (and also supported by other MUA like mutt).

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: Differences between mail-mode and message-mode

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Reiner Steib writes:
 > On Wed, Jul 22 2009, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > 
 > > Reiner Steib writes:
 > >
 > >  > Obviously the key bindings cannot be resolved without a change for
 > >  > either mail-mode or message-mode users.  Maybe set the bindings
 > >  > depending on some compatibility variable?
 > >
 > > How about the presence of Newsgroups?
 > 
 > >  > >  . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-f moves to FCC; in message-mode C-c C-f C-f
 > >  > >    moves to Followup-To, and C-c C-f C-w moves to FCC.
 > >
 > > Followup-To is rarely useful in a mail message.
 > 
 > A message-mode buffer can be news, mail or both.

Indeed.  That's why I mention "Newsgroups" above.  I'm conditioning
all my suggestions on "compatibility with the mail-only MUA that has
been default until now".  Ie, they apply only when it's *not* a news
post.  (As far as Emacs can tell so far: of course that can change if
the user desires.)

Of course this is a hack.  I think it's a shame that Gnus chose to
cater to 1-keystroke savings rather than keep a regular, mnemonic
keymap for default, but any attempt to change the Gnus keymap now will
of course meet a response greatly resembling in all ways the response
of mail-mode advocates to suggestions of change.

Re: Differences between mail-mode and message-mode

[Miles Bader]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:
> any attempt to change the Gnus keymap now will of course meet a
> response greatly resembling in all ways the response of mail-mode
> advocates to suggestions of change.

It would differ in one respect, at least, though:  there would be an
obvious and understandable reason for it...

I'm not sure there would be all that much of response though -- as a
long-time user of message-mode, I only use the barest fraction of its
bindings, and really wouldn't care much if they got re-arranged for
compatibility, or even just for sanity.

-miles

-- 
"... The revolution will be no re-run brothers; The revolution will be live."

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   [Oddly, if I do "M-x mail" instead (invoking mail-mode), it _doesn't_
   expand aliases...]

mail-mode expands them when sending, see sendmail-send-it.  You can
also use M-x expand-mail-aliases to expand them before sending, if you
want.

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:40:38 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> 
> I had a few spare moments, so I compared mail-mode and message-mode.
> The differences I found are below.

Here's one more: with message-mode, typing `m' or `r' in Rmail starts
the *mail* buffer in utf-8 encoding, whereas mail-mode uses the
default value of buffer-file-coding-system instead.  I don't know
where does the utf-8 come from (certainly not from my locale or
environment), but such a default sounds strange to me.

P.S. I don't know why I keep sending this information, because no one
seems to care.  Where are all those who asked for it?

Re: message-mode is now default?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   P.S. I don't know why I keep sending this information, because no
   one seems to care.  Where are all those who asked for it?

I find it more disturbing that the people who sneaked in this change
have ignored all requests to revert it.