On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 06:44:54PM +0100, Heinrich Langos wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 03:59:22PM +0000, Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > Please don't suggest that I'm defending a weakness, I'm not. I am
> > pointing out that it does what it says in the documentation. It points
> > out it's own weakness and that other than the documented issues it's
> > reliable.
>
> sorry, but the documented issues is what i am ranting about and what i
> proposed a solution for. documenting an issue may be enough for M$ or IBM.
> working to resolve the documented issue is what open source is about,
> isn't it?
Sure, of course it is. Anyone is free to provide a good solution to a
problem they perceive. You're obviously welcome to submit such a solution
or, if it isn't accepted into mutt itself, maintain a patch (see the
compressed folders patch as a prime example of this at work, I wouldn't use
mutt without the compressed folders patch).
> > Saving such information won't help you work out how many new mails there
> > are, or if there is new mail at all. It would let you know if the
> > mailbox had been modified in some way, which is pretty much what mutt
> > does right now.
>
> nope ... right now mutt only shows that the mailbox has been accessed. not
> if it has been modified.
It would appear that we have different definitions of "accessed" and
"modified". My copy of mutt shows me when an mbox has been modified, not
when it has been accessed.
> right now a simple grep will screw up new mail detection.
>
> try this:
> $ echo blah | mail yourself@localhost
> $ grep something /var/spool/mail/yourself
> $ mutt -y
> and you see no "N" ... pretty sad, isn't it?
No, I don't find it sad, I find it consistent with the documentation.
Obviously you're more than happy to find it an itch worth scratching, feel
free to scratch it. All I've been saying is that it *is* reliable, it does
exactly what it says it does. That it doesn't do what you'd like is a
different matter, I'm not commenting on that.
> i'm not saying that mutt should constantly scan the whole mailboxes or
> anything like that. i just say it could do so on request. or on startup.
The problem with such a scan is that it could take ages. I've got a lot of
mailboxes, some of which can be huge.
> ps: sorry for my uppish tone ... but i have recently had an overdose of
> "it's free. quit moaning!"-attitude. :)
Obviously the best method of dealing with this is to implement a solution,
that's more constructive than a self-confessed "uppish tone". It would seem
you've decided to do that so I don't really see a problem or a need for such
a tone.
--
Dave Pearson: | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams
http://www.davep.org/ | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards
Mutt: | muttrc2html - muttrc -> HTML utility
http://www.davep.org/mutt/ | muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode
