Hi Jameson,
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:40:44 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
<jroll...@finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:36:43 -0400, Antoine Beaupré <anar...@koumbit.org>
> wrote:
> > I think this is a great idea. Unfortunately, I had a lot of trouble
> > making message-mode digest an existing buffer. For example, if you take
> > any existing buffer and call (message-mode) on it, you will notice it
> > will clear the buffer completely.
>
> Hey, Antoine. Is this really true? It seems to work for me. For
> instance, if I view a received message raw ('V') I can then "C-x
> message-mode" on that buffer and it creates a partially filled, although
> not properly formatted, message.
Maybe I misunderstood original goal but what I had in mind reading this
is certainly not editing a priviously received message in order to
(re)send it again but sending a postponed/draft message which, I guess,
means no full header(s) (no received header and such and probably
partially filled header, if any).
On the other hand, doing just something like:
C-x mail RET M-x text-mode RET M-x message-mode RET
does no harm to the buffer content as far as I can tell thus, I guess
amdragon suggestion is by far, the best compromise.
/Xavier
_______________________________________________
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
