Re: mutt/2152: new read mail in IMAP folder not seen
The following reply was made to PR mutt/2152; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Phil Pennock <muttbug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Brendan Cully <brendan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: mutt/2152: new read mail in IMAP folder not seen
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:22:21 +0100
Okay, because I'm silly I tried replying using Thunderbird on my wife's
Windows box and when it wouldn't let me adjust the From: I saved to
Drafts and ... it disappeared into a black hole. Let's try again,
using, uhm, "mutt". *coughs*
On 2005-12-15 at 10:52 -0800, Brendan Cully wrote:
> not new. That code hasn't changed in years. It's not related to the
> bug you described either - polling other mailboxes is done completely
> differently from polling the selected one.
In that case, one of your recent changes has had a major impact on how
well this works, because I'd bound <Esc>$ through necessity. So gratz
there. Sorry for not knowing, but this is the first time that I've had
cause to build a +DEBUG mutt.
> UW is not a good IMAP server, or at least mbox is a very bad
> back end.
There be religious flame-war dragons. ;^) But I'm inclined to agree
with you, hence choosing to deploy Cyrus at work.
> But make sure you drop mail_check down to something sensible
> (ie 60+). 5 is insane for IMAP. And for everything else, really.
*CHOKES*
Thank you for pointing that option out to me. I'd not noticed it
before. "Insane" ... again, I am in complete agreement.
> I'm currently playing with a rewrite that uses UIDNEXT instead of
> RECENT to work around the ephemeral nature of the RECENT flag, but it
> will actually be marginally more expensive for the server.
I'm interested in helping to test this; would it be best for me to join
mutt-dev@ ?
[ imap-fetch-mail ]
> it's a silly function, but it'll probably hang around a bit
> longer.
Okay, I won't worry too much about awkwardness in a transitional tool,
then.
> New mail in the current mailbox is checked with NOOP or IDLE,
> which should be very cheap.
Not guaranteed to return status updates, though, IIRC. I guess that's
why you're not getting rid of imap-fetch-mail immediately though, to
wait to see just how brain-dead some of the smaller servers are?
Thanks,
-Phil