From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/81330 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Katsumi Yamaoka Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: gnus-summary-resend-message and gcc Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:35:54 +0900 Organization: Emacsen advocacy group Message-ID: References: <87d39l15pq.fsf@waxrat.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1329097018 22358 80.91.229.3 (13 Feb 2012 01:36:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:36:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org To: Michael Cook Original-X-From: ding-owner+M29610@lists.math.uh.edu Mon Feb 13 02:36:57 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rwkqd-0005FW-Py for ding-account@gmane.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:36:56 +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 1Rwkpj-0007Rv-7X; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:35:59 -0600 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 1Rwkpg-0007Rn-NQ for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:35:56 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rwkpe-0008Jq-NH for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:35:55 -0600 Original-Received: from orlando.hostforweb.net ([216.246.45.90]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Rwkpc-0005NN-NE for ding@gnus.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:35:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39095) by orlando.hostforweb.net with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RwkpV-0005vP-9k; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:35:45 -0600 X-Face: #kKnN,xUnmKia.'[pp`;Omh}odZK)?7wQSl"4o04=EixTF+V[""w~iNbM9ZL+.b*_CxUmFk B#Fu[*?MZZH@IkN:!"\w%I_zt>[$nm7nQosZ<3eu;B:$Q_:p!',P.c0-_Cy[dz4oIpw0ESA^D*1Lw= L&i*6&( User-Agent: Gnus/5.130002 (=?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCPz8bKEI=?= Gnus v0.2) Emacs/24.0.93 (i686-pc-cygwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:IdIB2Z1/Aa1GTV7Ej99BlYGZnVk= X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - orlando.hostforweb.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gnus.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jpl.org X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:81330 Archived-At: Michael Cook wrote: > When I resend a message (gnus-summary-resend-message), a copy gets > Gcc'ed into my gcc group. This didn't happen until recently after I > updated to the latest git code (which I hadn't done in long time). How do you add the Gcc header for your "gcc group" to a message to resend? I tried (setq message-default-headers "Gcc: nnml:inbox\n") (setq gnus-gcc-self-resent-messages 'none) and saw no Gcc took place. Hm. > Poking around in the code, I see that gnus-summary-resend-message > adds gnus-agent-possibly-do-gcc to message-sent-hook, and adds > gnus-summary-resend-message-insert-gcc to message-header-setup-hook. > gnus-summary-resend-message-insert-gcc heeds > gnus-gcc-self-resent-messages, which I've set to 'none. > But gnus-agent-possibly-do-gcc calls gnus-inews-do-gcc, which > seems to unconditionally do gcc. But there should be no Gcc header in the message header then if all is going right. The `message-resend' function modifies or removes Gcc header according to `gnus-gcc-self-resent-messages', so you can try this hook to see how the message header is then: (add-hook 'message-sent-hook (lambda nil (copy-to-buffer (get-buffer-create "*testing*") (point-min) (point-max)))) ;; Consult the "*testing*" buffer after resending a message. > Is something broken here? How do I get gnus-summary-resend-message > not to do gcc?