Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!itivax!vax3!scs
From: scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: A difference under BSD vs SysV
Summary: I am an idiot  :-)
Message-ID: <1001@itivax.iti.org>
Date: 21 Apr 89 15:19:25 GMT
References: <997@itivax.iti.org> <5082@pbhyf.PacBell.COM>
Sender: news@itivax.iti.org
Reply-To: scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Lines: 21

In article <5082@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes:
>In article <997@itivax.iti.org> scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
>+Under 4.3 BSD, you are asked if the messages marked for deletion should
>+be deleted.  Under 5.2 on a UNIX-PC, they are automaticly deleted.  ???
>
>Despite what the subject line says, this is *not* a BSD vs SYSV difference.
>Something is wrong on your UNIX-PC. Nothing should be automatically
>deleted with the 'q' command . . . . Are you ***sure*** you are using the
>newly compiled elm2.2 and not an earlier version? (Listen, I do stoopid
>things, too. :-) ).


Well, my latest stoopid thing was complaining before double-checking.  I
was comparing the performance of 'c' with 'q'.  At home my UNIX-PC tends
to have an elm window running for days on end.  When I actually quit, 
things worked the same on both systems.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima
culpa.

   Steve Simmons         Just another midwestern boy
   scs@vax3.iti.org  -- or -- ...!sharkey!itivax!scs
         "Hey...you *can* get here from here!"