From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/3800 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: larsi@ifi.uio.no (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: mail and post-news modes: C-c C-c vs C-c C-s Date: 02 Nov 1995 04:40:37 +0100 Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway Sender: larsi@ifi.uio.no Message-ID: References: <"-LHyOD.A.39C.7bQlw"@mnemosyne> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035144632 27330 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:10:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:10:32 +0000 (UTC) X-From-Line: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Wed Nov 1 20:40:35 1995 Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by miranova.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA05329 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 20:40:31 -0800 Original-Received: from surt.ifi.uio.no (4867@surt.ifi.uio.no [129.240.76.2]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 04:40:39 +0100 Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by surt.ifi.uio.no ; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 04:40:38 +0100 Original-Sender: lars@eyesore.no Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no In-Reply-To: Jason Schroeder's message of Mon, 30 Oct 95 12:10:19 -0500 Original-Lines: 14 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:3800 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:3800 Jason Schroeder writes: > I discovered the hard way that C-c C-s is not the best way to > deliver anything. Why are they so different? I thought the only > difference was the C-s version did not kill the buffer. As of sgnus-9, I > could not longer post with C-c C-s and I just found that C-c C-c in mail > mode gets the gnus-replied-mark set whereas using the other way does > nothing special. `C-c C-s' does `mail-send' (which just, like, sends the mail), while `C-c C-c' is a Gnus function that does... lots of stuff. -- Home is where the cat is.