Re: atime/mtime
On Jun 29 21:53, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Brendan Cully wrote:
>
> > I think we'll end up making a table of how new mail and unread old
> > mail should be handled by the buffy list, c' ',
> > c<next-unread-mailbox>, mutt startup, etc. A long time ago Vladimir
> > Marek started on this, but I got busy and dropped it.
>
> I've started collecting ideas at:
>
> http://dev.mutt.org/trac/wiki/NewMailHandling
>
> Please look at the workflows part and add yours if it's missing so that
> we don't miss important use cases.
After having given this some thought, I'm wondering if it's really
necessary to keep up the old model.
The only disadvantage of the new model is the behaviour of the
"change-folder" key if you leave messages marked as new.
However, by using the "mark_old=yes" setting and binding the
"next-new-then-unread"/"previous-new-then-unread" functions to the keys
you're usually favoring for the "next-unread"/ "previous-unread"
functions, you're back in business using the same workflow as before,
just with an "O" marker instead of an "N" marker.
Did I miss something?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Project Co-Leader
Red Hat