On 10.06.19 11:20, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > * "Kevin J. McCarthy" <ke...@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
