The return of starttls doesn't work in smtpmail

[Wolfram Fenske <Wolfram.Fenske@Student.Uni-Magdeburg.DE>]

Hello!

After upgrading my Gnus I couldn't send mail via smtpmail+starttls
anymore.  The reason was that it uses the function `with-no-warnings',
which isn't defined in XEmacs.  After finding and fixing the problem
myself it turns out this is a known problem:
<http://calypso.tux.org/pipermail/xemacs-beta/2007-March/010883.html>

Back then, Simon Josefsson's response was:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> Simon, I think that the best thing would be to just get rid of the
> with-no-warnings call (unless you know of bogus warnings that will
> definitely be issued), and we probably ought to change the
> condition-case to catch 'io-error, which will catch all exceptions due
> to expectable process failures.

There are several uses of with-no-warnings in modern elisp, how about
if XEmacs implements it?  The implementation seems straight forward,
here is what my Emacs has:

(put 'with-no-warnings 'lisp-indent-function 0)
(defun with-no-warnings (&rest body)
  "Like `progn', but prevents compiler warnings in the body."
  ;; The implementation for the interpreter is basically trivial.
  (car (last body)))

Thanks for the CC.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

According to
<http://quimby.gnus.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gnus/contrib/smtpmail.el>,
smptmail.el still isn't fixed.  Since I can't change XEmacs, as Simon
proposed, I suggest to add the following code to smtpmail.el or
gnus.el or whichever place is appropriate, to prevent even more people
from getting bitten by this:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
;;; XEmacs and older Emacs might not have `with-no-warnings'
(unless (fboundp 'with-no-warnings)
  ;; Taken from Emacs' byte-run.el
  (defun with-no-warnings (&rest body)
    "Like `progn', but prevents compiler warnings in the body."
    ;; The implementation for the interpreter is basically trivial.
    (car (last body))))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

-- 
Wolfram Fenske

A: Yes.
>Q: Are you sure?
>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?