Re: trash folder patch?
- To: mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: trash folder patch?
- From: "E. Prom" <e3prom@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 03:55:39 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to; bh=USGPiTUMHiknit1kIp0d/XDrZw4CC1cxtIfYvXFbc1Q=; b=L/2yFtRzZK1XnbJcbIfAZNDj5OBUhOd0erXilg7MBydJF6M36Sqkr5M8UTmkrfTlOW JNlnLK/y87EMYZKVVifGsbmtuIgn93MOv/WHWk2H+rtaS04Xn625QwVAQLqJE3wlvdlj tdPwQkplbkl8IDqPBwM31ySLZ3awYtQqwqSDA=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to; b=LxxS/RU1XLKp5K+8hzDheOGR7igectdApk9bokVxpquhrGHuVbEoiCpTKvNFOLujYH WeLwLhNFDpo+sk8PSR0Tu8++MqLFa+ogkbg9aTwWX9JtrXw7BoE/2Ltq/CbM3mBcu920 aUUWAvEelsiUQjkHo2K9unDksUBKI8EHDTS94=
- In-reply-to: <20100824202111.GA12811@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-post: <mailto:mutt-dev@mutt.org>
- List-unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@mutt.org, body only "unsubscribe mutt-dev"
- References: <20100824135215.GB31089@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20100824195713.GA29033@xxxxxxx> <20100824202111.GA12811@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx
On Tuesday, 24 August 2010, 13:21:11 -0700,
Omen Wild <omen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting Will Fiveash <will.fiveash@xxxxxxxxxx> on Tue, Aug 24 14:57:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:52:15AM -0700, Michael Elkins wrote:
> > > Was there ever any consensus on the trash folder patch. Some
> > > mutt-users were asking about it, and I note that Debian has been
> > > including it in their package for quite some time.
> >
> > If it can be done via macro then I would be against complicating the
> > mutt code base.
>
> The maco approach fails when you change your mind and undelete the
> message as it has already been copied to the trash. When you delete the
> message later you have 2 copies in the trash. Perhaps not the end of the
> world, but I like the cleanness the patch brings.
Maybe it could be done with a close-hook, but it seems to me quite
complicated : <untag-pattern>all, <tag-pattern>~D,
<tag-prefix-cond><save-message>=Trash. Haven't tested it. Could it even
work?