But I am correct that nmh saved the file as something that I could have
overwritten later using a comp, reply or something like that? What I was
suggesting was that, at the point where send (I think) failed, it would
be good if nmh made a super-special copy of the draft which, due to its
naming wasn't going to be overwritten. Am I asking for the impossible?
Well .... "it depends", on exactly what you mean.
If there IS A CRASH before a message is successfully sent, then the
message will remain in the original draft file. A future comp/repl will
NOT overwrite that.
If the message is successfully sent, then as just a last-ditch copy in
case you want it back it gets renamed using the backup prefix. Future
versions of send will overwrite that with a future successfully sent
message.
Based on what you describe, I suspect what happened is that your digest
bursting program overwrite your draft file between "repl" and "send",
and your "send" sucessfully sent the digest. I really don't know how
we could deal with this better; I am welcome to suggestions. I can't
really think of anything that could have solved this problem. If I am
correct, the message was gone by the time post got to it, so any extra
special backup would have been the wrong file.
One final note: with a few exceptions, it's generally not safe to run
two nmh programs simultaneously (we do some stuff to prevent sequence
file corruption and that helps, but it's not a guarantee that stuff
like this won't happen).
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers