* Derek Martin <inva...@pizzashack.org> [2019-06-11 12:16 -0500]: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:24:11AM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > > * Jack M <j...@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
