[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: Ken Hornstein
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh should be more careful about when it unlinks draft files
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 15:45:36 -0500

>But I am correct that nmh saved the file as something that I could have
>overwritten later using a comp, reply or something like that?  What I was
>suggesting was that, at the point where send (I think) failed, it would
>be good if nmh made a super-special copy of the draft which, due to its
>naming wasn't going to be overwritten.  Am I asking for the impossible?

Well .... "it depends", on exactly what you mean.

If there IS A CRASH before a message is successfully sent, then the
message will remain in the original draft file.  A future comp/repl will
NOT overwrite that.

If the message is successfully sent, then as just a last-ditch copy in
case you want it back it gets renamed using the backup prefix.  Future
versions of send will overwrite that with a future successfully sent

Based on what you describe, I suspect what happened is that your digest
bursting program overwrite your draft file between "repl" and "send",
and your "send" sucessfully sent the digest.  I really don't know how
we could deal with this better; I am welcome to suggestions.  I can't
really think of anything that could have solved this problem.  If I am
correct, the message was gone by the time post got to it, so any extra
special backup would have been the wrong file.

One final note: with a few exceptions, it's generally not safe to run
two nmh programs simultaneously (we do some stuff to prevent sequence
file corruption and that helps, but it's not a guarantee that stuff
like this won't happen).


reply via email to

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