order of sending mail and saving to fcc

[Nicolas Rachinsky]

* Derek Martin <invalid at pizzashack.org> [2019-06-11 12:16 -0500]:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:24:11AM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> > * Jack M <jack at forallx.net> [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 wrong moments.
> 
> But the failure mode of the current behavior is superior:  With the
> old way, you look in Fcc and see the message was sent, so you don't
> send it again (unless you're unusually paranoid, maybe).

But I cannot create the same message again. 

> With the current way, you see there's no message in Fcc, and you send
> it again.

If I do not have the message, how do I send it again?

> And by the way, changes like this one don't happen in a vaccuum.  The
> change was discussed on mutt-dev at some length when it happened, and
> it was eventually agreed that the new behavior is the right one.


Thanks to Kevin J. McCarthy who referred me to it. I habe read it, but
I did not find any convincing argument. 

HAND
Nicolas