On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:38:44AM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote: > On Tuesday, 12 July 2005 at 15:00, Vladimír Marek wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 04:26:59PM -0400 I heard the voice of > > > John J. Foster, and lo! it spake thus: > > > > > > > > Yes, they are new mail, complete with an N flag. However, they are > > > > not reflected in the mailboxes screen. Enter any folder with new > > > > mail, and immediately leave that folder. The mailboxes screen does > > > > not show that folder as having new mail. > > > > > > Well, it does, for me. But I'm using maildir, so I'd expect that. I > > > can't think of how you'd handle it in mbox without having to parse the > > > whole thing, though. Icky. > > > > sorry for joining here so late. Maybe a bit OT in this thread, but it's > > behaving differently even on IMAP folders. Back to the topic. I wrote a > > patch for this and submitted here according to all rules. No response. > > I wouldn't mind if someone told me that > > * this patch is bad ( which probably is, since it's my first adventure > > with mutt sources ) > > * it's feature creeping ( I doubt that, since for me it's doing IMAP > > in mutt quite unusable ) > > * it's not usefull to many people ( I doubt that, since I actually met > > someone on #mutt asking for this, and I was like five times on #mutt > > in my whole life ) > > Sorry about that. Here's my opinion: > - I like not being prompted to go back to a mailbox that I've just > left, so I haven't felt any pressing need to work on new mail > handling. Do you answer all your mail right away, or how do you solve when there's more mails which require your attention ? > - your patch is fine, but I didn't want to include it for two > reasons. 1: yet another tiny config variable, which should probably be 100% agree, but I don't see beter solution, at least solution which I'm able to implement > generalized across maiilbox formats, and 2: mutt's IMAP mail > detection is wrong anyway. The recent flag is basically broken by > design (especially if you have multiple clients connected at the > same time), and should be replaced by a UIDVALIDITY check. This > means squirreling a little more data away in the buffy list, which > in turn makes me think that general mailbox info should be cached > somewhere (to record things like number of messages, number of > flagged, number of new, number of unread etc), which leads to bigger > architectural changes than I've had time to consider. The IMAP code > is crusty enough that this happens to me all the time - little > features get put off for until after the bigger rewrite that never > happens. I'm not proud of that. Anyway, if mail handling is fixed, > your patch probably won't work the same way and becomes a backward > compatibility problem. I don't insist on my patch, I would be glad for any solution :) > - also, as one of us has been keen to point out, mutt's new mail > handling in general needs some TLC that may invalidate a number of > proposed workarounds. If we are able to admit that there's problem, we're halfway done :) Since this problem touches me personally I am willing to help. -- Vladimir
Attachment:
pgpt861hlQ7J2.pgp
Description: PGP signature