On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 06:28:44PM -0500, David Champion (dis)graced my inbox with: > On 2001.10.25, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Rob 'Feztaa' Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 10:21:30AM -0400, David T-G (dis)graced my inbox with: > > > Note that I have found, from recent discussion, that gkrellm (and perhaps > > > other new mail programs) improperly handle new and old-but-unread messages > > > (which many folks might consider new, though mutt correctly doesn't, > > > but which may fit within the design spec of gkrellm's "counting unread > > > messages" purpose) in Maildirs. > > > > I still say mutt is wrong - 'unread' is synonymous with 'new' :) > > Except when it's synonymous with "oh, heck, I don't want to deal with > this now." > > That's when I want something to be "old" instead of "new" or "read", and > to stay "old" between instances of mutt -- but for "unread" messages to > stay "unread", without becoming "old". > > Oh, well, I can't have everything I want. :)
Lol. I guess I just realized that I don't care about new mail, I want mutt to tell me when I have unread mail (in mutt's definition). Is that possible? Anyone? :) -- Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- If I wanted your opinion, I'd give it to you.
