Hi, * Benjamin Pflugmann [02-07-05 23:56:08 +0200] wrote: > On Fri 2002-07-05 at 01:36:52 +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote: > > * Benjamin Pflugmann [02-07-05 00:44:50 +0200] wrote:
> [...] > > I misunderstood him (completely) but one may specify a > > limit pattern to show only the mails of one > > correspondence. > How? Hmm, is that a trick question? You limit to mails from you to A and to mails from A to you. Or did I miss something, again? > But my point was that your suggestion would have all the > mails in one folder instead. I cannot see loading 3 x 1000 > messages being significantly slower/faster than 1 x 3000. It would be the same. > > You can also make mutt save the mail to the folder it > > was sent from. > I already have in- and outgoing mails in the same folder. > Don't know if that matters to the original poster. I think so. The scenario was to have incomming in +inbox and outgoing mail in +outbox. > > You can limit to every mail not from you. If you don't > > need the thread anymore, move it to the archive. > Well, that is exactly the point. If I moved it to the > archive and get a new message and have to look it up... Well, that is a question of how long you keep stuff. For lists it's unlikely that a response will be send to a mail which is a few weeks old, for example. > The problem arises (or more precisly: the requested > feature could be of use), when a new mail arrives, which > belongs to an "done" thread and I have to look it up in > the archive. In this case you know how important reasonable quoting can be... ;-) Seriously, you're right allthough I see this as a question of how long you keep mail. I do have extra-lookups, too, but not very often. And as my archive is quite big (because it keeps just everything in one place) it's no difference to me wether I start a second mutt loading a few thousand mails or turning this feature on. In the latter case mutt would have to iterate through the whole big archive, too. > As I said, that mainly happens only with support mails to > me, so maybe you simply do not encounter this, because you > do no support? This includes two things: Getting mails > after a long period of time (more than a month), which > continues an old thread, and people unable to quote > significant context in such mails. So, I guess that in your case this feature would be usefull. Or you just set up a newsserver and use mutt as your newsreader. ;-) > > I don't want to say that such a feature would be useless > > at all, I just say it's useless to me since I've > > organized my communication to not require such features. > Or because you do not get the kind of mails I get? ;-) Bcc me and we'll see... ;-) > I just wanted to show that the requested feature would > indeed solve a problem which has no direct solution yet. And all I tried to say is that there're great features one may use to achieve the same. I know that a line has to be drawn somewhere because working around everything would work like a charm ('telnet localhost pop') but isn't very convenient. Cheers, Rocco