From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/38145 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Per Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Rendering on Bm Date: 21 Aug 2001 13:50:21 +0200 Organization: The Church of Emacs Sender: abraham@dina.kvl.dk Message-ID: References: <87d75qxqhg.fsf@powerhouse.boogie.cx> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035173771 19283 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 04:16:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:16:11 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 9934 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2001 11:50:50 -0000 Original-Received: from sheridan.dina.kvl.dk (130.225.40.227) by gnus.org with SMTP; 21 Aug 2001 11:50:50 -0000 Original-Received: from zuse.dina.kvl.dk (zuse.dina.kvl.dk [130.225.40.245]) by sheridan.dina.kvl.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id NAA23701 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:50:22 +0200 Original-Received: (from abraham@localhost) by zuse.dina.kvl.dk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA25565; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:50:21 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: zuse.dina.kvl.dk: abraham set sender to abraham@dina.kvl.dk using -f Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Face: +kRV2]2q}lixHkE{U)mY#+6]{AH=yN~S9@IFiOa@X6?GM|8MBp/ In-Reply-To: <87d75qxqhg.fsf@powerhouse.boogie.cx> (Matt Christian's message of "20 Aug 2001 18:26:35 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/20.4 Original-Lines: 15 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:38145 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:38145 Matt Christian writes: > I run into this very same problem when dealing with spam in Gnus. Gnus > attempts to render HTML-based email before completely throwing away the > result and moving the article. I know about the discouraged-alteratives > variables but what spam is actually RFC compliant? I'd rather have > commands like 'B m' just move the dang article without even invoking any > display/rendering routines. I have the same problem, it is particularly bad as I don't trust that w3 will not be tricked into send any acknowledgement to the spam site. > Short answer: yes, could someone please make these functions non-selecting? me2