[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh should be more careful about when it unlinks draft

From: Laura Creighton
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh should be more careful about when it unlinks draft files
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 16:55:41 +0100

In a message of Mon, 02 Jan 2017 10:06:50 -0500, David Levine writes:
>Laura wrote:
>> I think _after_ the whatnow(1) prompt, as well, but it has long since
>> scrolled away.  I don't remember the shell complaing about receiving an
>> unwanted 'send', so I think that whatnow received it.
>So it sounds like you did tell whatnow to send.
>Was the draft renamed to a backup file?  That would be in your
>drafts directory and named with the draft message number prefixed
>with a , (by default).  And there might also be a similarly named,
>but with a .orig suffix, earlier draft file.
>If you use repl -annotate, was the message that you replied to


>Did you use send -push, either from the keyboard or in your profile?


>So many things have changed since 1.6 that I won't try to guess at
>the cause.  But I would expect to find a backup draft file if the
>draft is gone:  the draft is renamed to the backup file immediately
>after an apparently successful send.  The backup would have been
>overwritten if you then created and sent another message, using a
>draft with the same message number.

It's possible.  But the symptom wasn't 'I found a file with approximately
the correct timestamp, but it wasn't the one I was looking for, but something
I wrote later, or something that procmail could have written later' but
rather, 'went looking and found nothing with the correct timestamp.

But my real query is about this 'apparently successful send'.  Why wasn't
it apparent that the send wasn't successful?  Shouldn't a check of return
codes have discovered the problem?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]