On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 11:37:21AM +0100, Michael Tatge wrote: > * On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 Javier Rojas (jerojasro@xxxxxxxxx) muttered: > > Mutt doesn't seem to tag messages which are collapsed. I have a macro > > that marks all the unread messages as read, and now that I'm collapsing > > certain mailboxes, Mutt doesn't tag all the new messages. > > Correct. Mutt always work on *visible* messages *only*. You'd have > un-collapse all before doing whatever you're about to do. mmhhh, but the messages *are* visible. I mean, you know the folder has collapsed threads. It can even be seen how many messages are collapsed > > > The tag-thread feature (the killer feature of 1.5.13: ~() ) doesn't have > > a consistent behaviour too; tagging al threads with new messages on them > > (~(~N)) tags only the first message of the thread. > > ITYM of a collapsed thread. ~(~N) works fine here on un-collapsed > threads. Again mutt only works on visible messages. When you're about to > work on all messages, you have to un-collapse all. It should tag all messages, whether collapsed or not. After all, it tags all the *threads* that match a given criteria. > Say you limited to ~N then <delete-pattern>~f foo. Now there may be a lot > of messages that are ~f foo but not ~N only you don't see them now. > Should mutt delete them? I don't think so. You wouldn't even notice that > mutt matched and deleted those messages because you don't see them. > -> Prone to unwanted mail loss. Yep, that should be the expected behaviour, when using "limit". > The some goes for matching messages in collapsed threads. Collapse and limit are different. When using limit, I'm restricting the range of my actions (tagging) to a subset of the messages. Collapsing threads is just a convenient way of presenting the mailbox. So, collapsing threads should not mess with tagging. It's just a view. -- Javier Rojas GPG Key ID: 0xA1C57061
Attachment:
pgpfGZGDrlWIV.pgp
Description: PGP signature