From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/73488 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bruno Tavernier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: message-confirm-send Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:55:50 +0900 Message-ID: <877hh9au8p.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87r5fhedx1.fsf@jidanni.org> <87y69p9skh.fsf@eps142.cdf.udc.es> <1ppqv1mcuj.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1287842219 6739 80.91.229.12 (23 Oct 2010 13:56:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:56:59 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M21857@lists.math.uh.edu Sat Oct 23 15:56:58 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P9eag-0006mk-5H for ding-account@gmane.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:56:58 +0200 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 1P9eZt-0001gD-Uj; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:56:10 -0500 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 1P9eZq-0001fp-Bh for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:56:06 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P9eZl-0000kQ-RG for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:56:06 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-px0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1P9eZk-0003PB-00 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:56:01 +0200 Original-Received: by pxi13 with SMTP id 13so303477pxi.17 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:references :date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=XzUXK4cTuallAIQDI1HSjVRSDWP5W/iVvJWEK/9C4W8=; b=ZzAqxWZECSBBUr4X7M9zo+a27CTtyUqDoTtqFLULziKgzTit4b+SvRmBxnf/YRPkrs r58+KAhSoqs07+S/KtISFuhNqbm0xC9tHxOtc+igESvkSzOt8xNp/VCyBgjW29/RleIH dXhCY3aMAkvOikuhxXUKBkijKwP6uQzgUN6Yk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; b=gQjd9ZraHEAQ8lhGAGBssYxEyiItOhq1f5Ljr1nNsUqX58kuUFo49iLLezDkAfT5vm mAehkgwHUKd7R4oNJO37C8kQRyWlyplv+aaHvO4JgpBvtTGqvqD0zjhn9jnd3tNRuLfg AWt4WiVjYbUdDHGfIow9owkumC7jKyegMKhMs= Original-Received: by 10.142.135.7 with SMTP id i7mr3392370wfd.17.1287842129117; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from TdM (softbank219185161154.bbtec.net [219.185.161.154]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x18sm6751711wfa.11.2010.10.23.06.55.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 23 Oct 2010 06:55:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1ppqv1mcuj.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> (Richard Riley's message of "Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:18:28 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:73488 Archived-At: Richard Riley writes: > Alberto Luaces writes: > >> jidanni@jidanni.orgwrites: >> >>>>>>>> "LMI" == Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: >>> LMI> jidanni@jidanni.org writes: >>> >>>>> OK, you forced me to do >>>>> (defun jidanni-message-confirm () >>>>> "Confirm that we really want to send the message." >>>>> (interactive)(or (y-or-n-p "Send?")(keyboard-quit))) >>>>> (add-hook 'message-send-hook 'jidanni-message-confirm) >>>>> At least add an example to the manual. >>> LMI> Well, I've sent more than my share of messages prematurely by leaning on >>> LMI> `C-c C-c', so I'm sympathetic, but on the other hand, all equivalent >>> LMI> Emacs things (like checking in stuff into VCs) work with `C-c C-c' >>> LMI> without any "warning". So I think it should remain that way. >>> >>> Yeah with VCs you could just check it back out. But with email you have >>> to send apologies, unless you already sent the corporate secrets due to >>> cut and paste errors. >>> >>> Do provide the function but leave the variable to activate it off. That way >>> users could just toggle a variable instead of having to muck around >>> writing their own hack. >> >> What about just mapping also `C-c C-c' to `message-dont-send' if you >> want to reread before sending? > > C-c C-c is ingrained as "process". > > I would agree that the confirm could and should be built in > however. Possibly based on a group parameter "Prompt to confirm > post". Defaulted to nil so default stays the same. I probably read the thread too quickly, but isn't the variable `message-confirm-send' doing what you asked? In my .gnus, I have ,---- | (setq message-confirm-send t) `---- and no more messages send by mistake... ;-) -- Bruno