On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:26:21PM -0600, David Champion wrote: > * On 2003.11.11, in <20031111191357.GB29225@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > * "Will Yardley" <william+mutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Because I use a trash folder, and I don't like to have messages in there > > that are still marked as "new". > > Maybe rebind it to tag-thread, then tag-prefix mark them read, then > tag-prefix delete? You mean to bind it to untag-pattern ~T, then the above? ...or better, warn about any ~Ts, and then do the above? Clearly, working around side effects is not fun. The whole "resolve to next message after an action" thing is crap, IMHO, since the same functionality can be achieved easily by combining actions in a macro. Requiring macros to be used to _avoid_ side effects of what should be simple commands is really bad style, IMHO. It makes everything a lot more complicated than it ought to be :-( - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgppG6NIuaaWH.pgp
Description: PGP signature