From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/65708 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bastien Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: message-confirm-send Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:23:37 +0000 Message-ID: <877ikhgogm.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <87y7czs16b.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87bq9vazy8.fsf@jidanni.org> <87zlxfhztn.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87k5oj5ae9.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87sl37f3cj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pfl1tsu.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 1195295100 15297 80.91.229.12 (17 Nov 2007 10:25:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:25:00 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M14204@lists.math.uh.edu Sat Nov 17 11:25:06 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 1ItKrJ-0007bW-Si for ding-account@gmane.org; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:25:06 +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 1ItKqA-0005dI-MN; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:23:54 -0600 Original-Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1ItKq8-0005cz-AS for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:23:52 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1ItKq2-0000dE-6c for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:23:52 -0600 Original-Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ItKpy-0008K1-00 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:23:42 +0100 Original-Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id y2so793781uge for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:23:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:sender; bh=rrzXBpsiLtEBV4WDn8B0rEngOvgflZiXV+Lrv9XsF3E=; b=DLzu2NphXIsXdM8VShVcBlHHV74OjV8WNVpPPDA4uXHEwP1lAPZFFkMyDY2oQT/KGgeSVfaBEhIScrP4c83v43b9vhU3wsgGeSN8cPQpg2kGYiglXCNgEqp+ijwbJLj1+FPZmqhLCyt6ICI4jfz4eZ0tSpygPWK+p2SCpmUyc8w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=beta; h=received:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:sender; b=enOZO/polHRyqPXmy0fqSrfMlArRfYCa6oshJtMCKZgXucQYteFxYie/lPiudPcgUGcLJW+Wwi/H4Z+B6VjjxaDh8//9PUW5FJ8/PocZ/VbmmuoA8YfJUjxkK5LRwGc3zefMgJ5F1BnHCbJ5c05mReYCEnmbpTEXzbds4U0HDrQ= Original-Received: by 10.67.26.11 with SMTP id d11mr1740570ugj.1195295022464; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:23:42 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from bzg.ath.cx ( [89.243.43.167]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e23sm9322775ugd.2007.11.17.02.23.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:23:41 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by bzg.ath.cx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D21BC1575BA; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:23:37 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <874pfl1tsu.fsf@catnip.gol.com> (Miles Bader's message of "Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:37:21 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/23.0.0 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:65708 Archived-At: Miles Bader writes: > Russ Allbery writes: >>> 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...] >> >> Gnus could probably implement something like this internally, though, >> using a concept similar to the drafts group. > > The problem would seem to be reliability -- once they've hit send, > people really, _really_, don't want email to be lost or even delayed for > longer than expected (e.g. a "undoable delay" of 5 minutes might be > acceptable, but 2 days almost certainly isn't). I think some internal Gnus way of undoing mails would be a mistake. If someone finds C-c C-c to be too dangerous, he might also use a different key (provided he's aware that he will get used to this new key soon.) > MTAs in general have put huge amounts of effort into making mail queuing > fairly reliable, but I think any Gnus specific solution is bound to be > less so (and it's probably a lot of work to make it reliable). I tend to use C-c C-d more and more myself. Not only when I'm offline, but also when I plan to quickly review the mail I send. -- Bastien