Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

[Sent before I intended to.] On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 01:53:18AM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > @Derek: I've read your mails in this thread, and I'm in no way > convinced. I'd love for you to explain why. Note that Kevin confirmed that my arguments are technically correct. So despite that I

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 01:53:18AM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > I can only say, Erik wrote the answer I wanted to write. > > @Kevin: The new change sounds very promising. Thank you for that > and all your work! > > @Derek: I've read your mails in this thread, and I'm in no way > convinced.

Re: Making attachments [Was: Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 03:34:00PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: That looks quite useful. There's also the CheckAttach vim plugin, by Christian Brabandt. Starting in 1.10, there is also $abort_noattach in Mutt. It's not quite as useful, because it waits until you hit send and then scans

Making attachments [Was: Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 16.06.19 09:48, Cameron Simpson wrote: > I compose with edit_headers=yes, so recipients and subject are part of the > temporary file. > > Also, I attach using the Attach: pseudo header, so the attachment filename > is also part of the temp file. Provided I haven't exited the compose mode >

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 11Jun2019 20:21, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: * Derek Martin [2019-06-11 12:47 -0500]: Not only that, but I neglected the fact that if the send fails, the file your editor produced in order for it to be passed to Mutt will still be on disk, so you do IN FACT still have a copy of the message.

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 10Jun2019 11:56, Ben Boeckel wrote: On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 08:40:30 -0700, Felix Finch wrote: [...slightly extreme failure modes elided...] For me, the difference is that having extra Fcc copies is nowhere near as bad as not having any. If you're this paranoid, the only real fix is to

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

I can only say, Erik wrote the answer I wanted to write. @Kevin: The new change sounds very promising. Thank you for that and all your work! @Derek: I've read your mails in this thread, and I'm in no way convinced. HAND Nicolas

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 09:31:53AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:28:26PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > >Obviously you don't need to listen to me > > I do listen to you, Derek. The whole buffer pool migration is a > result of your recurring prods, and I will continue

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:28:26PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: Obviously you don't need to listen to me I do listen to you, Derek. The whole buffer pool migration is a result of your recurring prods, and I will continue to work on that, likely through the next couple major releases. I also

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 05:20:02PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 11.06.19 12:36, Derek Martin wrote: > > I hesitate to go far as to say that if you think saving the message > > first is the right behavior, you are simply wrong... but I'm > > definitely thinking it. =8^) > > I like your

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 11.06.19 12:36, Derek Martin wrote: > I hesitate to go far as to say that if you think saving the message > first is the right behavior, you are simply wrong... but I'm > definitely thinking it. =8^) I like your style, Derek. And respect that your use case works for you. What surprises me is

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 11.06.19 13:45, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 06:43:25AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > Something like $fcc_order or $fcc_before_send is possible, > > I've pushed a branch up to gitlab, kevin/fcc-before-send. It adds > $fcc_before_send, default unset. Many grateful

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

Derek Martin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 01:45:18PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 06:43:25AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > I've pushed a branch up to gitlab, kevin/fcc-before-send. It adds > > $fcc_before_send, default unset. > > Obviously you don't need

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 01:45:18PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 06:43:25AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > I've pushed a branch up to gitlab, kevin/fcc-before-send. It adds > $fcc_before_send, default unset. Obviously you don't need to listen to me, but I do want

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 06:43:25AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: Something like $fcc_order or $fcc_before_send is possible, I've pushed a branch up to gitlab, kevin/fcc-before-send. It adds $fcc_before_send, default unset. The caveats to enabling are as mentioned: message manipulation is

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 08:11:33PM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > > I hesitate to go far as to say that if you think saving the message > > first is the right behavior, you are simply wrong... but I'm > > definitely thinking it. =8^) > > You might consider it wrong but I do not seem to be the

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

Hi Mutters, I haven't been following the thread but just to reply to a few points with the names of the posters removed in order to focus on content rather than who said what: > > It's not your > > mail client's job to protect you from every conceibable system > > failure which might cause data

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

* Derek Martin [2019-06-11 12:47 -0500]: > Not only that, but I neglected the fact that if the send fails, the > file your editor produced in order for it to be passed to Mutt will > still be on disk, so you do IN FACT still have a copy of the message. I did just (using my old mutt) set sendmail

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

* Derek Martin [2019-06-11 12:36 -0500]: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:04:25PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > In the event that send fails, the local copy is essential for a resend > > attempt. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. I'm at a loss to imagine any > > scenario in which mutt should risk

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

* Derek Martin [2019-06-11 12:16 -0500]: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:24:11AM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > > * Jack M [2019-06-04 10:20 -0500]: > > > On Tue, June 4, 2019 5:30 am, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > > > > The other one (mail sent, but no local copy) > > > > > > Why would this

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:36:00PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > But also, just because the message failed to send, your ideas and the > impetus for writing them down didn't vanish. Your brain is the > back-up. Not only that, but I neglected the fact that if the send fails, the file your editor

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:04:25PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: > In the event that send fails, the local copy is essential for a resend > attempt. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. I'm at a loss to imagine any > scenario in which mutt should risk inability to write that Fcc, through a > hang-up or

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:24:11AM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > * Jack M [2019-06-04 10:20 -0500]: > > On Tue, June 4, 2019 5:30 am, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > > > The other one (mail sent, but no local copy) > > > > Why would this situation would ever occur? > > A power failure at the

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:04:25PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: If developers insist on the backwards method for themselves, then is an fcc_order config option possible for the benefit of users seeking the old reliability? Something like $fcc_order or $fcc_before_send is possible, but with

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 10.06.19 11:20, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > * "Kevin J. McCarthy" [2019-06-04 09:44 -0700]: > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:30:59PM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > > > Does anybody know the reason of this change? > > > > The most recent discussion on mutt-dev was > >

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

* Ben Boeckel [2019-06-10 11:56 -0400]: > If you're this paranoid, the only real fix is to have your editor save a > backup somewhere before handing it off to mutt in the first place > anyways. After all, mutt could segfault and lose it before the Fcc! There is one big difference. If mutt

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 20190610, Ben Boeckel wrote: On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 08:40:30 -0700, Felix Finch wrote: As other(s) have mentioned, power failure, cat jumping on keyboard. I have also had sends hang seemingly forever, and the only way forward is tokill the tmux session. Then I have no Fcc copy. I can

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 08:40:30 -0700, Felix Finch wrote: > As other(s) have mentioned, power failure, cat jumping on keyboard. I > have also had sends hang seemingly forever, and the only way forward > is tokill the tmux session. Then I have no Fcc copy. I can root > around /tmp to find the

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 20190610, Felix Finch wrote: Perhaps a compromise is to Fcc as a draft file first, then send, then move the draft Fcc file to its permanent location. Not so clever with IMAP draft files. It would have to be a special local file, and mutt would have to look for it on start. --

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 20190604, Jack M wrote: The other one (mail sent, but no local copy) Why would this situation would ever occur? As other(s) have mentioned, power failure, cat jumping on keyboard. I have also had sends hang seemingly forever, and the only way forward is tokill the tmux session. Then I

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

* Francesco Ariis [2019-06-04 19:52 +0200]: > Hello Grant, > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 04:46:50PM -, Grant Edwards wrote: > > On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: > > > > > The reason (or *a* reason) is that the old way led to the following > > > situation: Fcc first, then try to send, something

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

* Jack M [2019-06-04 10:20 -0500]: > On Tue, June 4, 2019 5:30 am, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > > The other one (mail sent, but no local copy) > > Why would this situation would ever occur? A power failure at the wrong moment. A crash at the wrong moment. ... These things tend to happen only at

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

* "Kevin J. McCarthy" [2019-06-04 09:44 -0700]: > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:30:59PM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > > Does anybody know the reason of this change? > > The most recent discussion on mutt-dev was > . The issue is > contentious,

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: > On Tue, June 4, 2019 10:46 am, Grant Edwards wrote: >> On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: >> >> >>> The reason (or *a* reason) is that the old way led to the following >>> situation: Fcc first, then try to send, something weird happens, but >>> the user has no idea

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, June 4, 2019 10:46 am, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: > > >> The reason (or *a* reason) is that the old way led to the following >> situation: Fcc first, then try to send, something weird happens, but >> the user has no idea whether the mail was actually sent or not >

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

Hello Grant, On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 04:46:50PM -, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: > > > The reason (or *a* reason) is that the old way led to the following > > situation: Fcc first, then try to send, something weird happens, but > > the user has no idea whether the mail

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: > The reason (or *a* reason) is that the old way led to the following > situation: Fcc first, then try to send, something weird happens, but > the user has no idea whether the mail was actually sent or not How could the user not know? If the send fails, mutt prints

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:30:59PM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: Does anybody know the reason of this change? The most recent discussion on mutt-dev was . The issue is contentious, and there are arguments on both sides. In this case, the

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, June 4, 2019 5:30 am, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > Hallo, > > > I just noted the entry in UPDATING: > ! Fcc now occurs after sending a message. If the fcc fails, mutt will > prompt to try again, or to try another mailbox. > > This seems to be: >

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:30:59 +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > I considered the previous order (save to fcc, then send the mail) > always the correct one. If anything bad happens (network connectivity > failing (in case of imap), computer crashing,...), it seems to > produce the better