From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/64311 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dave Goldberg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix gnus-message-citation-mode for (S)XEmacs Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:49:25 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1171396809 14592 80.91.229.12 (13 Feb 2007 20:00:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:00:09 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M12835@lists.math.uh.edu Tue Feb 13 21:00:02 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 1HH3oo-0003kM-00 for ding-account@gmane.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:00:02 +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 1HH3nk-0000YP-T1; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:58:56 -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 1HH3nj-0000Y2-Bc for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:58:55 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HH3nd-0003Fn-1l for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:58:55 -0600 Original-Received: from vms048pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.48]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1HH3nb-00066n-00 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:58:48 +0100 Original-Received: from davestoy.homelinux.org.verizon.net ([72.74.234.218]) by vms048.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JDF001UZ32EWDS3@vms048.mailsrvcs.net> for ding@gnus.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:49:31 -0600 (CST) X-Face: GUaHTH@nS>[7,ME@-gYZ4#Wl{z"99k@[[Y8AcP0x1paqu.,z9,XSV1WI>{q3f6^e5(zrit <4fV&VHhmE`uidRqtmG27;si9&r;#KSF~E#$%W8w(xdp)H4tW=\2XOk~3=@oGqqpj;m4xf Ow;y26396&,34@9#~4;@*S;E0cq"LM9N(us4P%F(Nxis'Vvfm9?KufH;:Q$dMa-QWGLR&K d0`LJZE8xb*>^yN>b]_NcU:E=Zn\1=#/(OS2 In-reply-to: (Katsumi Yamaoka's message of "Tue\, 13 Feb 2007 21\:46\:09 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:64311 Archived-At: >>>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:46:09 +0900, Katsumi Yamaoka said: >>>>>>> In Dave Goldberg wrote: >>> but I do appear to be getting at least the same fontification I had >>> before this update. >>>>> In Katsumi Yamaoka wrote: >> I have the same problem as yours with the home pc. > I seem to have solved this problem. Could you try it? It's odd. When working on my linux machine at home I get the same messages: Fontifying *wide reply to Katsumi Yamaoka on ding@gnus.org*... Fontifying *wide reply to Katsumi Yamaoka on ding@gnus.org*... done. Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... (regexps).... Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... (regexps)........ Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... (regexps)........ Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... (regexps)......... Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... (regexps).......... Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... (regexps)............. Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... (regexps).............. Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... (regexps)............... Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... (regexps)............... Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... (regexps)............... Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... (regexps)............... Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... (regexps)............... Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... (regexps)................ Fontifying mail to ding@gnus.org... aborted.aborted. I don't see them at all when using my machine at work, which is running Windows XP with XEmacs under cygwin (locally compiled). I use the same .xemacs/init.el, .xemacs/custom.el and .gnus on both machines. I cannot explain the difference. However, the message buffers look equivalent with fontified headers and included text (though it's all one color whereas it sounds like this change is supposed to make included text look nicer). Thanks, -- Dave Goldberg david.goldberg6@verizon.net