order of sending mail and saving to fcc
Erik Christiansen
dvalin at internode.on.net
Tue Jun 11 12:04:25 UTC 2019
On 10.06.19 11:20, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> * "Kevin J. McCarthy" <kevin at 8t8.us> [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
> > <https://marc.info/?l=mutt-dev&m=146942930418541&w=2>. The issue is
> > contentious, and there are arguments on both sides.
>
> Thank you for the reference.
>
> > In this case, the comments by active developers seemed to be in consensus
> > that prompting if Fcc fails afterwards is a reasonable compromise.
>
> Ok, so I will replace $sendmail by something that saves the mail
> first, since not having a local copy of a sent mail (for an easily
> avoidable reason) is just not acceptable here. :(
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 conniption during sending.
We have backups for our files for a reason - recovery is impossible
without them. To deliberately create a potentially irrecoverable
situation in mutt is incomprehensible. 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?
Mind you, I can avoid the problem by remaining on my old mutt, and never
updating.
Erik
More information about the Mutt-users
mailing list