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: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:22:54 +0100
On 2005-12-15 at 15:24 -0800, Brendan Cully wrote:
> In hindsight it strikes me that the problem was probably that your
> $timeout was much too high. The new IDLE code isn't dependent on
> $timeout, but NOOP was. $timeout has a default which isn't suitable
> for IMAP.
Was set to 60 seconds in some variable I set years ago. Now amended to
15 seconds, per (your) manual note.
How does this affect my results though, since I was explicitly pressing
<Esc>$ for imap-fetch-mail, so $timeout shouldn't have been an issue,
should it?
> > I'm interested in helping to test this; would it be best for me to join
> > mutt-dev@ ?
>
> Sure, I'll be posting the announcement there when I've got it working
> to my satisfaction locally.
Subscribed, thanks.
> > > 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?
>
> It's because not everything supports IDLE...
Sorry, I was both unclear and stupid. I was thinking that NOOP provided
an opportunity for an untagged response without guaranteeing that the
server bothers to track new mails, but of course the server is required
to do so during an EXAMINE/SELECT so the opportunity is sufficient.
Thanks,
-Phil