On Friday, 27 October 2006 at 18:41, Bob Bell wrote: > I've finally upgraded mutt from 1.5.11 to 1.5.13 (using the Gentoo > ebuilds). I've found a difference with how mutt handles IMAP folders > with unread "old" but not "new" messages. > > Starting with version 1.5.12, mutt doesn't appear able to distinguish > between a folder with only "old" and "read" messages, and a folder that > contains some "new" messages. If I start mutt with two folders that > have only "old" and "read" messages, mutt will constantly say that > I have new messages in the other folder, no matter how many times > I switch between the folders. This of course makes it much more > difficult to manage my incoming mail. sounds like a real bug. Mutt's supposed to be able to remember which folders have only 'old' messages within a session (and it works with my cyrus 2.2 server). Unfortunately, I have no time at all for mutt hacking for at least two weeks. New mail handling is one of the few things I'd like to revisit before 1.6 though. "RECENT" is unfortunately pretty unreliable. The options for reliably remembering "old" across sessions involve caching and/or expensive mailbox checks. > Interestingly, if when I start mutt when a folder has some "new" > messages in it (as well "old" and "read" messages), the behavior > actually seems to be corrected, at least for a period of time. > I haven't nailed down the exact behavior here yet. > > I'm guessing that this change in behavior is related to the following > change by Brendan: > 2005-12-16 18:18:52 Brendan Cully <brendan@xxxxxxxxxx> (brendan) > * imap/command.c, imap/imap.c, imap/imap_private.h, > imap/message.c, imap/util.c: New new mail detection code. Now we > use UIDVALIDITY/UIDNEXT to detect whether a mailbox has been > changed since we last saw it, rather than the more ephemeral > RECENT flag. We also keep a cache of mailboxes we've visited or > called STATUS on, which might eventually make for better > information in the browser and mailbox views. Big changes, > probably not stable. IWFM. > > Might it be necessary to use RECENT here if mark_old is set? (Just > guessing based on some things I've read; I don't really know the IMAP > protocol) > > I MUCH prefer the old behavior, and have regressed to using 1.5.11 for > now. If it's acknowledged that the new behavior is incorrect but the > reason for this change in behavior isn't clear, please let me know what > I can do to sort it out. > > A small bit about my configuration: > Tested with mutt 1.5.11-r1 vs. 1.5.12 from Gentoo > IMAP server is Courier 4.0.4 > Have mark_old set > Have header_cache set > I can provide the full details if necessary. >
Attachment:
pgplqR6fOxnPb.pgp
Description: PGP signature