On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 11:46:56PM EDT, David T-G wrote:
> % I've been having some trouble with mutt, and I'm not sure if it's a bug
> ...
> % As a stopgap measure, I have set up a macro so that when I press 's'
> % mutt sync's the mailbox and then saves the message... but this of course
> % flushes any messages I may have marked deleted and all sorts of other
> % things I may not want done quite yet (on top of being a bit slow).
>
> I don't think that it's a bug; I thnk that the IMAP interface just works
> that way. It's definitely the behavior I've seen in my brief browsings.
Don't you just love it when people tell you a bug is not a bug because
that's just how the program works? ("What do you mean it's a bug that
it crashes when you type 'blah'? The program just works that way.")
The deciding factor of whether or not it's a bug is whether it behaves
as intended, which is usually approximated by whether it behaves as
documented (assuming people say what they mean and mean what they say -
fortunately for the world of open source, programmers are relatively
speaking excellent at saying what they mean and meaning what they say).
Nowhere in the documentation have I noted a special exception for read
messages staying read in the case of IMAP, and indeed, common sense
would argue that there's no particular reason to want such an exception,
so the likelyhood that they simply forgot to document this cool feature
is relatively low, as well. I'm willing to bet that a quick look at
the source will show that the cache is simply not consulted when copying
an IMAP message. Please note that Mutt's IMAP implementation has never
been known for its quality in the first place, so I'd prefer to blame the
IMAP code itself than to blame the documentation writers for failing to
document a "feature" that makes no sense - and that directly contradicts
one of Mutt's goals (to promote management of many different types of
mailstores without requiring extensive training in many differently
behaving programs).
- 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:
pgptBvjNLrLNB.pgp
Description: PGP signature