From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/65308 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Is this patch of gnus/pop3.el reasonable? Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:38:05 +0200 Message-ID: <85ir5r2302.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1191191904 20716 80.91.229.12 (30 Sep 2007 22:38:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:38:24 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, ratinox@peorth.gweep.net Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 01 00:38:21 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ic7QF-0005px-Pd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:38:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ic7QC-0008Cf-0w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:37:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ic7Q8-0008CB-DE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:37:52 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ic7Q6-0008Bz-W7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:37:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ic7Q6-0008Bw-SR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:37:50 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ic7Q6-0002CF-KD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:37:50 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ic7PJ-00067M-P7; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:37:01 -0400 Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 523C71C4CE10; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 00:38:06 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:80066 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:65308 Archived-At: --=-=-= I am currently cleaning through unchecked changes in my Emacs tree. I found that I have made the following change, presumably in order to stop pop3 fetching from hanging in some cases with a possibly patchy pop3 server. Could also be related to coding system translation or something. Now the question is whether this is a bad idea to check into upstream. I can't see that it will affect operation where the server is correct, and it might avoid hangs where it isn't. What do you think? --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-patch Content-Disposition: attachment --- pop3.el 01 Aug 2007 00:14:10 +0200 1.38 +++ pop3.el 11 Aug 2007 08:56:13 +0200 @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ (set-buffer (process-buffer process)) (goto-char pop3-read-point) (while (and (memq (process-status process) '(open run)) - (not (search-forward "\r\n" nil t))) + (not (search-forward "\n" nil t))) (pop3-accept-process-output process) (goto-char pop3-read-point)) (setq match-end (point)) --=-=-= -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel --=-=-=--