From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/6331 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ketil Z Malde Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Fixed! (was: mail-abbrev?) Date: 22 May 1996 17:18:40 +0200 Sender: ketil@ii.uib.no Message-ID: References: <9605221345.AA01020@due.ii.uib.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146802 3301 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:46:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:46:42 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA31669 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 09:07:40 -0700 Original-Received: from eik (eik.ii.uib.no [129.177.16.3]) by ifi.uio.no with SMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 17:18:44 +0200 Original-Received: from due.ii.uib.no (due) by eik with SMTP id AA09849 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ding@ifi.uio.no); Wed, 22 May 1996 17:18:44 +0200 Original-Received: by due.ii.uib.no; (5.65/1.1.8.2/08Jun94-0756AM) id AA01149; Wed, 22 May 1996 17:18:42 +0200 Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no In-Reply-To: Ketil Z Malde's message of Wed, 22 May 1996 15:45:57 +0200 Original-Lines: 34 X-Mailer: September Gnus v0.90/XEmacs 19.14 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6331 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6331 I wrote: > Switching to sgnus-0.90, I get the message that mail-abbrev could not > be loaded. Compiling gave me the same kind of messages about it not > existing. What gives? I found out. Or, at least, I made the problem go away by renaming the require for 'mail-abbrev with a require for 'mail-abbrevs. That's abbrevS, with an S at the end. Possibly a new name from Xemacs-19.14 (I use a beta version -- but so does a lot of other people on the list, don't they? Steve?) However, now I feel that getting new articles take an insurmountably long time - is it just my NFS/NNTP connection not being up to par, or is there in fact a slowdown from 0.76? Is there anything I can do in the way of profiling or something to measure where the sluggishness stems from? Ah, one more thing - when citing an article that already contain cited text, I often get something like this (the prepended tab not included): > >blah blah > gobble gobble ..but C-c C-q mangles the first one, due to, I think the spaces used. Perhaps message-fill-yanked-message could be made more intelligent -- maybe using some heuristics used in the highlighting code? Or is there something I can do about it? ~kzm