On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 09:15:47PM EDT, John J. Foster wrote: > I could be totally off the mark here, but I believe the problem is > mutt's interpretation of new mail vs. your (and my) interpretation of > new mail (unread mail). I have always believed, and still do, that > unread mail is the same as new mail.
You are mistaken. > Although I understand mutt's logic, I think it is wrong. After all, > they still show it with an "N" flag! But over 5 years I have learned > to live with it. I totally disagree. I think mutt's logic makes excellent sense .. Especially in this list, I routinely get mail that I couldn't care less about .. from regular posters I know are past redemption.. I don't see why I should go to the trouble of having to delete their contributions. I don't have much time, so I ignore them. I feel mutt's logic is 100% correct.. telling me there are _new_ posts on top of stuff I intially couldn't be bothered to delete and not take into account whatever garbage I didn't have the time & patience to get rid of. Nothing personal, I assure you. :-) CJ