On Thu, Jul 26 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or are you saying that when the 21 limit is reached it incorrectly keeps the
oldest 21 rather than the most recent 21?
Neither one is the case. See below.
That would indeed be a plain bug.
But that is what Lars said the RFC said the last
Not if the hardwired number is recommended by the relevant standards.
I'm not convinced that we should have a defvar (or even a defconst for
this).
Agreed. But it does deserve a comment justifying the value chosen.
Stefan
___
On 7/26/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean hardwiring any number without a defvar alternative should raise
a red flag anyway.
Good point.
Anyway, thanks for your persistence in this matter. Farther than I got
last time just posting to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not sure that
oldest 21 rather than the most recent 21? That would indeed be a plain bug.
But that is what Lars said the RFC said the last time I brought this
up. Which you can see somewhere in news://news.gnus.org/gnus.gnus-bug
which is what http://gnus.org/resources.html says is the only way to
see gnus
In message.el, the user should be given some variables in case he
wishes to have some control over the wads of References, and their
order.
Trim REFERENCES to be 21 Message-ID long or less, and fold them.
---
Trim REFERENCES to be jidanni:1 Message-ID long or less, and fold them.
(let
In message.el, the user should be given some variables in case he
wishes to have some control over the wads of References, and their
order.
IIRC, the order is fixed by the relevant RFC, so we can't really let the
user mess it up.
As for making 21 customizable, well it seems like a good
S IIRC, the order is fixed by the relevant RFC, so we can't really let the
S user mess it up.
We demand shoot-feet control. Actually here we are smarter than the
RFC. RFC? bah! KFChicken.
S As for making 21 customizable, well it seems like a good value, what
S with it being half of 42 and
S IIRC, the order is fixed by the relevant RFC, so we can't really let the
S user mess it up.
We demand shoot-feet control. Actually here we are smarter than the
RFC. RFC? bah! KFChicken.
Since you use a length of 1, I'm wondering why you'd care about
the ordering.
Or are you saying that when
