Re: Mail source unreachable - continue yes/no?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Lars-Johan Liman <liman@liman.se> writes:

> Lol!
>
> Thanks. OK, so I wasn't off the mark, then. :-)
>
> I'm not even sure this needs to be fixed. It's good that the fact that
> the server couldn't be reached is signalled, but continuing seems like
> the right thing to do. The message is somewhat misleading though. How
> about changing the "question" to a "Please ack!" of some kind?

Looking over the code, I'm inclined to agree with Lars-Johan here: there
isn't really any need to halt the process, what's important is that the
user be made aware of the failure. I'm trying to imagine why the user
would _need_ to halt things here. Unless we've got some sort of restart
situation, where the user can eg put in the correct password and try
again, it doesn't seem useful.

Allow me to re-introduce my suggestion of using warnings! It's looking
better and better the more I consider it. `delay-warning' is just what
we want: it puts messages in the hopper, which aren't displayed until
the current command is completely finished, instead of messages
clobbering each other and getting buried. It has its own private buffer,
keeping information separate. There are plenty of user-facing knobs, and
facilities for hiding or silencing the warnings.

See attached!

gnus-define-errors.diff
Description: Text Data