From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/5474
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: abraham@dina.kvl.dk (Per Abrahamsen)
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Yanking the original article buffer
Date: 07 Mar 1996 02:11:48 +0100
Organization: The Church of Emacs
Sender: abraham@dina.kvl.dk
Message-ID: <rj20n5wvu3.fsf@ssv4.dina.kvl.dk>
References: <x6zq9tpwna.fsf@illusion.apk.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146073 475 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:34:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:34:33 +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 (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA19989 for <steve@miranova.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:41:33 -0800
Original-Received: from elc1.dina.kvl.dk (elc1.dina.kvl.dk [130.225.40.228]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <CAA11978@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 02:13:42 +0100
Original-Received: from ssv4.dina.kvl.dk (ssv4.dina.kvl.dk [130.225.40.223]) by elc1.dina.kvl.dk (8.6.12/8.6.4) with ESMTP id CAA18504; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 02:08:00 +0100
Original-Received: (abraham@localhost) by ssv4.dina.kvl.dk (8.6.12/8.6.4) id CAA28534; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 02:11:48 +0100
X-Face: +kRV2]2q}lixHkE{U)mY#+6]{AH=yN~S9@IFiOa@X6?GM<U{B+4e{k79.Ya{~':DblFPCg$
 @60,BfLv2@SKZ19cMWK0/C'v;tM:|6B'R}U1rp6CL&kN({9<zF/V{:JCg27yC)9oZjeqcQawzKfiNL
 t9}`vjmK["dRQC/qGFQq"%u|Q`:6{"Rz}b(dnl_"3$Jtqimi>|8MBp/
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
In-Reply-To: dhall@illusion.apk.net's message of 06 Mar 1996 19:36:09 -0500
Original-Lines: 12
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:5474
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:5474


>>>>> "dh" == d hall <dhall@illusion.apk.net> writes:

dh> Per mentioned an invisible buffer which contains the original article.
dh> Could Sept. Gnus.  I'm assuming SC doesn't know about this buffer and yanks
dh> the modified buffer.  Could/should Emacs overload this function with it's
dh> own version?  Or else should Emacs switch to the original article buffer
dh> before it decides to reply/followup?

I'd prefer SuperCite to use the buffer where I have unread the
quotable, I mean unquoted the printable characters.