<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: mutt development status



* Derek Martin <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005-07-12 11:09 -0400]:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:28:31AM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> > * Derek Martin <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005-07-12 03:18 -0400]:
> > > 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.  But as you say, you haven't read it yet, so you want your
> > 
> > I often open folders without looking at anything of some of the new
> > mails. I think these mails should stay new. 
> 
> How does marking such mail as "unread" not solve your problem?

My problem is already solved fine by mutt. The mails stay new, as they
should.


> > But mutt cannot know, which mails I looked at. 
> 
> It absolutely CAN know... it only doesn't by choice of the

It can't know. I don't have any devices which enable my computer to
know where I look (or do not look).

> maintainers.  Other mailers have been aware of read vs. unread mail
> for decades. Literally.

Mutt is aware of the difference between read and unread. The latter is
called old, but it is there. But I disabled it, because I don't like
it.

Nicolas