From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3ED6DE01F7 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 03:42:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.007 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AZe5snqgceKt for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 03:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 987096DE00BD for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 03:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bjl9w-0002vM-OG; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 06:41:48 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 24137 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 13 Sep 2016 10:41:54 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , Mark Walters , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] emacs: reply: remove wrong sig/enc status buttons In-Reply-To: <871t0obssh.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> References: <877fahq5v3.fsf@zancas.localnet> <1473718339-19946-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> <871t0obssh.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 07:41:54 -0300 Message-ID: <87d1k8qdxp.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 10:42:02 -0000 Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > hm, fwiw, i am still seeing Version: 1 in both the replies and in the > plaintext message body, even with this patch applied :/ > > not sure what i should do to give you more debugging info. any > pointers? Maybe this is obvious, but I had the same experience until I recompiled the emacs lisp (make). Does the test I posted later in the thread pass for you? (after my version of the patch) d