Re: Mail source unreachable - continue yes/no?

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> 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 agree.

> 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.

I'm not sure I want to be popping up a buffer at the user for network
errors and the like -- it's expected that a news reader will have some
network problems, and putting up a buffer about it isn't very helpful.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no