GNU bug report logs - #2022
23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it

unarchive 2022

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org
Subject: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:24:37 +0200

Please write in English if possible, because the Emacs maintainers
usually do not have translators to read other languages for them.

Your bug report will be posted to the emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org mailing list.

Please describe exactly what actions triggered the bug
and the precise symptoms of the bug:

To reproduce:

  emacs -Q
  C-u M-x rmail FOO RET
  C-u g FOO.2 RET

The last command automatically saves the Rmail inbox (as it should),
but the buffer is nevertheless marked modified after the save.

If Emacs crashed, and you have the Emacs process in the gdb debugger,
please include the output from the following gdb commands:
    `bt full' and `xbacktrace'.
If you would like to further debug the crash, please read the file
d:/gnu/emacs/etc/DEBUG for instructions.

In GNU Emacs 23.0.60.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2009-01-24 on HOME-C4E4A596F7
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4)'

Important settings:
  value of $LC_ALL: nil
  value of $LC_COLLATE: nil
  value of $LC_CTYPE: nil
  value of $LC_MESSAGES: nil
  value of $LC_MONETARY: nil
  value of $LC_NUMERIC: nil
  value of $LC_TIME: nil
  value of $LANG: ENU
  value of $XMODIFIERS: nil
  locale-coding-system: cp1255
  default-enable-multibyte-characters: t

Major mode: RMAIL

Minor modes in effect:
  tooltip-mode: t
  tool-bar-mode: t
  mouse-wheel-mode: t
  menu-bar-mode: t
  file-name-shadow-mode: t
  global-font-lock-mode: t
  font-lock-mode: t
  blink-cursor-mode: t
  global-auto-composition-mode: t
  auto-composition-mode: t
  auto-encryption-mode: t
  auto-compression-mode: t
  line-number-mode: t
  transient-mark-mode: t

Recent input:
C-u M-x r m a i l <return> ~ / d a <tab> m a i l . 
i n <return> p p p n n n n C-u g <up> 2 <return> C-x 
b * M e s s <tab> <return> C-x b <return> M-x r e p 
o r t <tab> <return>

Recent messages:
Loading vc-cvs...done
Counting messages...done
No following nondeleted message
Getting mail from d:/usr/eli/data/mail.in2...
Counting new messages...
Counting messages...20
Counting new messages...done (37)
Saving file d:/usr/eli/data/mail.in...
Wrote d:/usr/eli/data/mail.in
37 new messages read

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:12:15 -0500

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>   emacs -Q
>   C-u M-x rmail FOO RET
>   C-u g FOO.2 RET
>
> The last command automatically saves the Rmail inbox (as it should),

Yes, and at this point (after the new mail has been inserted) the
buffer is (correctly) marked unmodified.

> but the buffer is nevertheless marked modified after the save.

But immediately after this, rmail-set-attribute is called to remove
the "unseen" attribute from the first new mail inserted from FOO.2.
This (correctly) marks the buffer as modified. If the mails in FOO.2
have already been seen, no buffer modification occurs.

From: Richard M Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org, bug-submit-list <at> donarmstrong.com,
        bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:53:23 -0500

      emacs -Q
      C-u M-x rmail FOO RET
      C-u g FOO.2 RET

    The last command automatically saves the Rmail inbox (as it should),
    but the buffer is nevertheless marked modified after the save.

Maybe it is deleting the "unseen" attribute when it shows one of the
newly insertes message.

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: rms <at> gnu.org
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:10:22 -0500

OT:

You replied to a mail that looked like this:

  From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
  To: emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org
  Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org

Your reply was addressed to:

  To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
  Cc: emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org,
	 bug-submit-list <at> donarmstrong.com

Where are all these extra addresses coming from?
I can understand you having emacs-pretest-bug there (even though it's
unnecessary); but not bug-gnu-emacs and bug-submit-list as well. I
don't think that last one is even a valid address.

All this does is create duplicate mails (I got three copies of your
mail). Can you check your mail setup please?

(All you need is eliz and 2022).

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>, 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: rms <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:19:10 +0200

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:10:22 -0500
> Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> 
> OT:
> 
> You replied to a mail that looked like this:
> 
>   From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
>   To: emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org
>   Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Your reply was addressed to:
> 
>   To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>   Cc: emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org,
> 	 bug-submit-list <at> donarmstrong.com
> 
> Where are all these extra addresses coming from?

Like me, Richard uses Rmail.  So I'm guessing he just pressed `r',
which replies to all the addresses in From:, To:, CC:, and Reply-To:,
which are not himself.

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: rms <at> gnu.org
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:20:42 +0200

> From: Richard M Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
> CC: emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org, bug-submit-list <at> donarmstrong.com,
> 	bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:53:23 -0500
> 
>       emacs -Q
>       C-u M-x rmail FOO RET
>       C-u g FOO.2 RET
> 
>     The last command automatically saves the Rmail inbox (as it should),
>     but the buffer is nevertheless marked modified after the save.
> 
> Maybe it is deleting the "unseen" attribute when it shows one of the
> newly insertes message.

That's what Glenn found out, yes.  But I don't think I, as a user,
care about that attribute: if the buffer was just saved, it is not
modified from the user perspective.  I find the fact that it is shown
as modified confusing.

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:22:21 +0200

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
> Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:12:15 -0500
> 
> But immediately after this, rmail-set-attribute is called to remove
> the "unseen" attribute from the first new mail inserted from FOO.2.
> This (correctly) marks the buffer as modified.

Emacs does not elsewhere consider seeing a file as its modification.
Why should Rmail be different?

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:54:32 -0500

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Like me, Richard uses Rmail.  So I'm guessing he just pressed `r',
> which replies to all the addresses in From:, To:, CC:, and Reply-To:,
> which are not himself.

Whence bug-submit-list <at> donarmstrong.com then?

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:57:04 -0500

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Emacs does not elsewhere consider seeing a file as its modification.
> Why should Rmail be different?

Because seeing a file (for the first time) modifies the
X-RMAIL-ATTRIBUTES: header, which is stored in the file.

I guess that if you just use rmail to visit a folder which has an
unseen mail, it will be marked modified in exactly the same way.

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
        Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:59:33 -0500

Glenn Morris wrote (on Sun, 25 Jan 2009 at 00:54 -0500):

> Whence bug-submit-list <at> donarmstrong.com then?

Oh, I see, it's the Resent-To address. So this is bug#512.

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:35:45 +0200

> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:59:33 -0500
> From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
> 
> 
> Glenn Morris wrote (on Sun, 25 Jan 2009 at 00:54 -0500):
> 
> > Whence bug-submit-list <at> donarmstrong.com then?
> 
> Oh, I see, it's the Resent-To address.

Yes, and bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org comes from Resent-CC.  What about that
one?

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:59:10 +0200

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
> Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:57:04 -0500
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Emacs does not elsewhere consider seeing a file as its modification.
> > Why should Rmail be different?
> 
> Because seeing a file (for the first time) modifies the
> X-RMAIL-ATTRIBUTES: header, which is stored in the file.

The old (pre-mbox) Rmail also had the unseen attribute, but it never
marked the Rmail buffer modified when it was removed.  So this is a
change in behavior, and I can't say I like it.

I don't think we want to regard seeing a message as a modification,
since the body of the message does not change a bit.  But if we do
make this change, at the very least, it should have been implemented
as an option, and/or via an idle timer, so that just paging thru many
messages does not automatically mark them as ``seen'', although no
human could possibly ``see'' a message in a fraction of a second.

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:45:59 -0500

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> The old (pre-mbox) Rmail also had the unseen attribute, but it never
> marked the Rmail buffer modified when it was removed.

That's a good argument. I wonder how it worked...

> I don't think we want to regard seeing a message as a modification,
> since the body of the message does not change a bit.

But the meta-data (or whatever you want to call it) has changed.
If Emacs were to crash without saving at that point, you would lose
some data, namely the data that you had viewed a particular mail.

It seems pretty reasonable to me. It's what VM does, for example.

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:03:20 +0200

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
> Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:45:59 -0500
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > The old (pre-mbox) Rmail also had the unseen attribute, but it never
> > marked the Rmail buffer modified when it was removed.
> 
> That's a good argument. I wonder how it worked...

By setting the buffer's modified flag, like it's done everywhere else.

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:53:53 -0500

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> By setting the buffer's modified flag, like it's done everywhere else.

Actually, it seems rmail-mode-1 used to lie to you by doing:

(setq mode-line-modified "--")

Seems like a bad idea to me... Anyway,

(add-hook 'rmail-mode-hook (lambda () (setq mode-line-modified "--")))

and you're back to having the wool pulled over your eyes.

From: Richard M Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:22:36 -0500

    You replied to a mail that looked like this:

      From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
      To: emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org
      Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org

    Your reply was addressed to:

      To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
      Cc: emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org,
	     bug-submit-list <at> donarmstrong.com

They were in the message I replied to.  Rmail's reply command puts
them in automatically.  Sometimes I remember to delete them, sometimes
I forget.

Here's what I get in *mail*:

    To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
    CC: emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org, bug-submit-list <at> donarmstrong.com,
	    bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org

The inclusion of those other addresses is certainly undesirable,
but given these headers, is Rmail doing something wrong?

X-Loop: owner <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Resent-To: bug-submit-list <at> donarmstrong.com
Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:30:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.2022.B.12328070836588 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org
X-Emacs-PR-Message: report 2022
X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs
X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: 
Received: via spool by submit <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B.12328070836588
	(code B ref -1); Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:30:02 +0000
Received: (at submit) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 24 Jan 2009 14:24:43 +0000
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10])
	by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n0OEOexo006582
	for <submit <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Sat, 24 Jan 2009 06:24:41 -0800
Received: from mail.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]:56049 helo=mx10.gnu.org)
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67)
	(envelope-from <eliz <at> gnu.org>) id 1LQjPd-0001dc-Nx
	for emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org; Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:23:06 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <eliz <at> gnu.org>) id 1LQjR7-0001aw-SY
	for emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org; Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:24:39 -0500
Received: from mtaout1.012.net.il ([84.95.2.1]:20972)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <eliz <at> gnu.org>) id 1LQjR7-0001a9-1k
	for emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org; Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:24:37 -0500
Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout1.012.net.il by i-mtaout1.012.net.il
	(HyperSendmail v2007.08) id
	<0KDZ00K00C06ZU00 <at> i-mtaout1.012.net.il> for
	emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org; Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:24:51 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.6.113]) by i-mtaout1.012.net.il
	(HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id
	<0KDZ00J4PC1EX160 <at> i-mtaout1.012.net.il> for
	emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org; Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:24:51 +0200 (IST)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:24:37 +0200
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
X-012-Sender: halo1 <at> inter.net.il
To: emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org
Message-id: <ueiysu6hm.fsf <at> gnu.org>
X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9.1
X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3)
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:43:33 -0500
Cc: 
Subject: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
	the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-emacs>,
	<mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request <at> gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/bug-gnu-emacs>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request <at> gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-emacs>,
	<mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request <at> gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+rms=gnu.org <at> gnu.org
Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+rms=gnu.org <at> gnu.org
X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4)

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: rms <at> gnu.org
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:25:59 -0500

Richard M Stallman wrote:

> The inclusion of those other addresses is certainly undesirable,
> but given these headers, is Rmail doing something wrong?

Rmail was including the Resent-To and Resent-CC addresses in the
reply. It was established on emacs-devel in June 2008 that this is
incorrect according to RFC 2822 (filed as bug#512). I believe I have
just fixed this in rmail-reply.

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:32:25 -0500

>> The inclusion of those other addresses is certainly undesirable,
>> but given these headers, is Rmail doing something wrong?

> Rmail was including the Resent-To and Resent-CC addresses in the
> reply. It was established on emacs-devel in June 2008 that this is
> incorrect according to RFC 2822 (filed as bug#512). I believe I have
> just fixed this in rmail-reply.

Thank you,

        Stefan

PS: The rest still needs to be fixed on the debbugs side.

From: Richard M Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>, 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: bug-submit-list <at> donarmstrong.com, 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
        bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org, owner <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:11:35 -0500

    Rmail was including the Resent-To and Resent-CC addresses in the
    reply. It was established on emacs-devel in June 2008 that this is
    incorrect according to RFC 2822 (filed as bug#512).

This conclusion seems really strange.  If you received a message that
was resent to you and others, shouldn't they be in the CC for your response?

I searched my mail from June for bug.512 and got no matches.
Can you send me whatever message stated the reasons for this conclusion?

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: rms <at> gnu.org
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 02:51:17 -0500

Richard M Stallman wrote:

> This conclusion seems really strange.  If you received a message that
> was resent to you and others, shouldn't they be in the CC for your response?
>
> I searched my mail from June for bug.512 and got no matches.
> Can you send me whatever message stated the reasons for this conclusion?

For the record, this discussion has moved to emacs-devel.

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:06:15 -0500

I'd propose to tag this "wontfix", unless there are objections?

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:29:03 +0200

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:06:15 -0500
> 
> 
> I'd propose to tag this "wontfix", unless there are objections?

Objection!

I would like Rmail to keep the previous behavior, whereby it sets up
the mode line to not show the modified status.  There's no real reason
to change that behavior; I'm not aware of any request for such a
feature.

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:38:10 -0500

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> I would like Rmail to keep the previous behavior, whereby it sets up
> the mode line to not show the modified status.  There's no real reason
> to change that behavior; I'm not aware of any request for such a
> feature.

Fair enough. I'm not an rmail user, so my opinion is not worth much.
(But the old behaviour seems like a bug to me, rather than a feature.)

From: Richard M Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: rgm <at> gnu.org, bug-submit-list <at> donarmstrong.com,
        2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org,
        owner <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:05:24 -0500

    I would like Rmail to keep the previous behavior, whereby it sets up
    the mode line to not show the modified status.

I changed that a long time ago, because I discovered I did want to
know whether the buffer is modified.

From: Kevin Rodgers <kevin.d.rodgers <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving
 it
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:17:54 -0700

Richard M Stallman wrote:
>     I would like Rmail to keep the previous behavior, whereby it sets up
>     the mode line to not show the modified status.
> 
> I changed that a long time ago, because I discovered I did want to
> know whether the buffer is modified.

And the truth shall set you free.

-- 
Kevin Rodgers
Denver, Colorado, USA

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: rms <at> gnu.org
Cc: 2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rgm <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:25:16 +0200

> From: Richard M Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
> CC: rgm <at> gnu.org, bug-submit-list <at> donarmstrong.com,
> 	2022 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org,
> 	owner <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:05:24 -0500
> 
>     I would like Rmail to keep the previous behavior, whereby it sets up
>     the mode line to not show the modified status.
> 
> I changed that a long time ago, because I discovered I did want to
> know whether the buffer is modified.

Well, at least this change in behavior should be in NEWS.

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: 2022-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2022: 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:49:32 -0500

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Well, at least this change in behavior should be in NEWS.

ok, done

GNU bug report logs - #2022 23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it

GNU bug report logs - #2022
23.0.60; Rmail buffer marked modified after saving it