>> Thanks for this report. It might be simpler to wrap the whole thing in a
>> single save-restriction+narrow-to-headers, since the function gets
>> called four times. What do you think?
> I wrote the patch paying attention to minimize side effects since I'm not
> familiar with that functionality. So if `gnus-registry-spool-action' is
> interested in only mail headers, your proposal is much better.
Okay! Would you be willing to give the attached diff a quick test?
bug#42029: `gnus-registry-spool-action' gets field beyond message headers
On 06/26/20 22:24 PM, Basil L. Contovounesios wrote:
> Eric Abrahamsen <[hidden email]> writes:
>> + (save-excursion
>> + (message-narrow-to-headers-or-head)
> Shouldn't this additionally or instead be wrapped in save-restriction?
Bleagh, you're right, sorry about that. It was supposed to be