On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 01:05:34AM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: > > But there is good reason to distinguish between "new" mail, and > > "unread" mail. You may not have read a particular message, but from > > seeing its sender and subject, you may already know that it's a > > message you don't need to see (or even don't have time to look at) > > right now. > > If there are thousands or tens of thousands of new messages, you > could very well have opened a folder without seeing (or reading) the > author / subject. There are plenty of times where I open a folder > and do not look at the subject and sender of every single message in > it. So do I. But doesn't the fact that you're changing folders mean that you've already made the decision that the main in the current folder does not require your immediate attention? That's the point of unread vs. new mail... unread is de-prioritized new mail. Under the model I described, mutt would still automatically come back to this folder... just not until you've looked at all the other folders with new mail in them. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank the spammers.
Attachment:
pgp7bjMiYZbhQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature