From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/62549 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: [sdl.web@gmail.com: gnus makes emacs lose response] Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:37:12 -0400 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1144338065 6692 80.91.229.2 (6 Apr 2006 15:41:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:41:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+m11076@lists.math.uh.edu Thu Apr 06 17:41:01 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRWbG-0006Uv-3a for ding-account@gmane.org; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:40:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1FRWb3-0000ZT-00; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:40:33 -0500 Original-Received: from nas01.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.39]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1FRWXr-0000ZO-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:37:15 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by nas01.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FRWXq-0001di-GP for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:37:15 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1FRWXp-0008N5-00 for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:37:13 +0200 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1FRWXo-0006x5-B3; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:37:12 -0400 Original-To: Dave Love In-reply-to: (message from Dave Love on Wed, 05 Apr 2006 19:30:21 +0100) X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Precedence: bulk Original-Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:62549 Archived-At: This is a longstanding problem with background processes. I sent a test case maybe two years ago, but as far as I know it never got fixed and I couldn't follow the process code to fix it confidently. Can you still reproduce this problem? If so, could you send a test case (perhaps the same one) again?