From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/25278 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Rupa Schomaker (list)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: why article refresh in gnus-summary-edit-article? Date: 24 Sep 1999 12:20:33 -0700 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035162693 13151 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 01:11:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:11:33 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from bart.math.uh.edu (bart.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.48]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA03052 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:22:27 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by bart.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAB19229; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:22:24 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:22:51 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08781 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:22:42 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from gw.rupa.com (postfix@cx1823-a.alsv1.occa.home.com [24.5.151.91]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA03040 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:20:36 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by gw.rupa.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id B6FD01D1D7; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 12:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Original-To: ding@gnus.org Mail-Copies-To: never In-Reply-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of "24 Sep 1999 18:16:47 +0200" Original-Lines: 22 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070096 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.96) XEmacs/21.1 (20 Minutes to Nikko) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:25278 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:25278 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: > "Rupa Schomaker (list)" writes: > > > I'm not sure what would break if we didn't reload the article before > > calling the -edit base. Anyone know? > > Well, you would face having to edit something that has been washed > pretty severly. For instance, many of the headers would be gone, and > so on. Ah, very good point! The last thing I really want to happen is for the decrypted message to actually be saved to the message store (currently I think this does happen for backends that support editing). Would it be reasonable to add an optional argument to -edit that tells it not to do a reload of the article. Then something that wants to do the -edit and *knows* that it shouldn't do an article reload could communicate that fact to -edit... -- Rupa (rupa@rupa.com for normal email) Please don't email duplicate replies.