Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org> writes:

>>>>>> In <87ac0lrea5.fsf@lrde.org> Michaël Cadilhac wrote:
>
>>> --- nntp.el	05 Feb 2006 14:56:44 +0100	1.31
>>> +++ nntp.el	25 Dec 2006 13:48:53 +0100
>>> @@ -451,10 +451,11 @@
>>>  				wait-for nnheader-callback-function)
>>>  	  ;; If nothing to wait for, still remove possibly echo'ed commands.
>>>  	  ;; We don't have echos if nntp-open-connection-function
>>> -	  ;; is `nntp-open-network-stream', so we skip this in that case.
>>> +	  ;; is `nntp-open-network-stream' or `nntp-open-ssl-stream',
>>> +	  ;; so we skip this in that cases.
>>>  	  (unless (or wait-for
>>> -		      (equal nntp-open-connection-function
>>> -			     'nntp-open-network-stream))
>>> +		      (memq nntp-open-connection-function
>>> +			    '(nntp-open-network-stream nntp-open-ssl-stream)))
>>>  	    (nntp-accept-response)
>>>  	    (save-excursion
>>>  	      (set-buffer buffer)
>>>
>>> Without it, I'm getting stuck after my message is posted (it is,
>>> actually).
>>>
>>> I don't know if the patch makes sense, but can we discuss this bug?
>
> Well, I have no account on nntps servers.  It will be necessary
> to verify that this change is harmless for every nntps server.
> Can anyone do that?
>
> Regards,

Anyone?..

-- 
 |      Michaël `Micha' Cadilhac     |  Un certain Blaise Pascal              |
 |         Epita/LRDE Promo 2007     |    etc... etc...                       |
 |  http://michael.cadilhac.name     |  -- Prévert (Les paris stupides)       |
 `--JID: michael.cadilhac@gmail.com--'                                   -  --'