From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/65770 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Giorgos Keramidas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: message-confirm-send Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:26:19 +0200 Message-ID: <20071125032619.GE4493@kobe.laptop> References: <87y7czs16b.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87bq9vazy8.fsf@jidanni.org> <87zlxfhztn.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87k5oj5ae9.fsf@catnip.gol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1195973636 30354 80.91.229.12 (25 Nov 2007 06:53:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 06:53:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Russ Allbery , ding@gnus.org To: Miles Bader Original-X-From: ding-owner+M14267@lists.math.uh.edu Sun Nov 25 07:54:04 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IwBNP-0005Ai-Sq for ding-account@gmane.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:54:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IwBMy-000190-1s; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:53:32 -0600 Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IwBMv-00018d-VT for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:53:30 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IwBMq-0007nw-7z for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:53:29 -0600 Original-Received: from igloo.linux.gr ([62.1.205.36]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Iw89p-0000CS-00 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 04:27:45 +0100 Original-Received: from kobe.laptop (dialup242.ach.sch.gr [81.186.70.242]) (authenticated bits=128) by igloo.linux.gr (8.14.1/8.14.1/Debian-9) with ESMTP id lAP3QRcs001547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:26:52 +0200 Original-Received: from kobe.laptop (kobe.laptop [127.0.0.1]) by kobe.laptop (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id lAP3QNob004818; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:26:23 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Original-Received: (from keramida@localhost) by kobe.laptop (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id lAP3QJMk004817; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:26:19 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k5oj5ae9.fsf@catnip.gol.com> X-Hellug-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Hellug-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-3.943, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, AWL 0.46, BAYES_00 -2.60) X-Hellug-MailScanner-From: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:65770 Archived-At: On 2007-11-16 08:58, Miles Bader wrote: >Russ Allbery writes: >> By that criteria, confirmation on C-c C-c, since it happens every time >> without any recognition of common cases and attaches to a frequent >> operation, is useless in much the same way that the rm -i alias is >> useless. > > Perhaps a more useful solution to the "realize your mistake as soon as > you hit send" problem (and this at least, is real) would be undoable > mail. Undoability often seems like a better method than confirmation. > > Since you can't actually undo mail sending, a more practical solution > then would be a default queuing period for outgoing mail and easy-to-use > tools to examine the queue and cancel pending messages. > > I suppose it's all a bit too much effort (needs MTA cooperation etc) for > the gain though. [and would probably cause tons of complaints about > your "slow" mail system...] That's a very good suggestion, I think. I am not worried too much about hitting `C-c C-c' too fast, because most of the time I spent in Gnus is in agentized sessions. This means that all outgoing Usenet posts and mail messages are queued by default, and I can expire them from the `queue' group to undo the posting operation. It doesn't happen very often that I want to expire a posted message, but there have been at least 3-4 times the last year. This means that it is far from a very common thing to do, but still not something useless or completely unworthy of consideration. Maybe an agentized session is something which the original poster may consider as an `improved mode of using Gnus'? - Giorgos