Re: Happy New Year!
On 2009-01-03, Kyle Wheeler <kyle-mutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Friday, January 2 at 02:16 PM, quoth Gary Johnson:
> > Wrong. I can do that now. Using multiple mutts to access one
> > mailbox has the problem that each instance of mutt has its own idea
> > of the status of each message and that status can't currently be
> > sync'd among multiple mutts. What would be nice is a way to have
> > one mutt display multiple views of the same mailbox.
>
> I get your point, assuming you meant *unsynchronized* status changes.
> Because the way you sync status among multiple mutts is to save your
> changes to the mailbox (i.e. <sync-mailbox>). In essence, if I
> understand you, you're saying that you want multiple mutt instances to
> know things that are not saved to disk (or that the IMAP server
> doesn't know).
Right. Also, as I understand it, syncing a mailbox means that mutt
writes the statuses that are in memory to disk--mutt doesn't try to
reconcile statuses on disk with those in memory, except for new
messages. Therefore, if mutt instance A changes the status of
message 1 and mutt instance B changes the status of message 2, there
is no way to get both those changes into the on-disk mailbox.
Regards,
Gary