On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 12:28:38PM -0200, Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09 2003 at 05:11:26AM BRST, David Yitzchak Cohen > <lists+mutt_users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 05:03:09PM -0200, Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel wrote: > > > After some time using them, I noticed that, if I lose connection > > > to > > > any of them (for whatever reason), telling mutt to access > > > "imaps://server/INBOX" doesn't force a reconnection, mutt instead shows me > > > "no mailbox" and leaves it at that. No matter how many times I change > > > folders and return to imaps://... , I still get "no mailbox", mutt doesn't > > > even try to reconnect. > > > > > > I couldn't find a way to force reconnection, except leaving mutt > > > and entering it again. Am I missing something? > > > > I wonder whether an easy way to sidestep the problem is to set $tunnel > > to an IMAP proxy on the local machine that'll automatically reconnect > > when the connection's lost. . . > > It could work, yes. But that's not really a solution, as you waid > it's a workaround. Mutt's real advantage over other open-source mailers is that workarounds can provide almost full relief from problems until somebody gets the chance to fix the program itself. My version of Mutt is 100% unpatched :-) > I'll try to take a look at mutt's code when I have some more time, > in a week or so. Ah, that'd be nice - somebody with the energy to fix some IMAP issues (hint: look at all the bugs involving IMAP). . . - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpLJvIvXDLYy.pgp
Description: PGP signature