On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 06:28:34PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 09:34:13PM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:49:35PM -0400, Xu Wang wrote: > > This variable configures how often (in seconds) mutt should look for new > > mail. > > Also see the $timeout variable. > > > > So I don't think 0 makes sense here. > > The code (in buffy.c) is: > > ... > t = time (NULL); > if (!force && (t - BuffyTime < BuffyTimeout)) > return BuffyCount; > > BuffyTime = t; > BuffyCount = 0; > BuffyNotify = 0; > ... > > So, it appears that if mail_check is 0, mutt will simply do the mail > check every time it can (every time mutt_buffy_check() is called). > If it's not clear, BuffyTimeout gets initialized from the value of > mail_check. This code also shows that there are times when mutt will > check for mail regardless of how mail_check is set--whenever the > function is called with the force parameter != 0. That happens in 3 > places in the code. > > So, no, there's no way to prevent mutt from checking for new mail. > Having answered the question, I am pretty curious: Why on earth would > you want to do that?!
"Continuous" checking of mail is unreasonable but seems to be what mail_check == 0 appears to do. Perhaps a mutt enhancement would be to let a zero value mean do not check for new mail based on a time interval. Such a change would have no effect on current settings of > 0, likely 99.99+ percent of mutt installations. And for those few who do use mail_check == 0, a change to "1" would be little affected as far as I can see. Jon -- Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com 11226 South Shore Rd. (703) 787-0688 (H) Reston, VA 20190 (703) 935-6720 (C)
