Hi,
* Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 07:04:39AM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote:
> > At home, I'm using Cygwin's mutt package and it just happens to have
> > +BUFFY_SIZE configured.
> Just a comment. I compiled 1.5.18 "out of the box" on Cygwin and I do not
> have
> that set. I a
On 2009-05-13, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 07:04:39AM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote:
> > At home, I'm using Cygwin's mutt package and it just happens to
> > have +BUFFY_SIZE configured.
>
> Just a comment. I compiled 1.5.18 "out of the box" on Cygwin and
> I do not have that
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 07:04:39AM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-05-12, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > * Wu, Yue wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you, 'check_mbox_size' does the trick.
> >
> > Hmm, how is the partition with the mboxes mounted? This option only
> > exists for setups where acces
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 09:40:52AM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Wu, Yue wrote:
>
> > Thank you, 'check_mbox_size' does the trick.
>
> Hmm, how is the partition with the mboxes mounted? This option only
> exists for setups where access/modification time cannot be reliably used
> to detec
Hi,
* Wu, Yue wrote:
> Currently, I find that if I enter to a mbox, then quit from it, the mbox's N
> mark will be removed, no matter whether there are news mails in it or not, not
> what I think preference for me. Can I configure it? I have set the mark_old=no
Sorry for the noise. This is just f
On 2009-05-12, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Wu, Yue wrote:
>
> > Thank you, 'check_mbox_size' does the trick.
>
> Hmm, how is the partition with the mboxes mounted? This option only
> exists for setups where access/modification time cannot be reliably used
> to detect new mail. Filesystems ca
Hi,
* Wu, Yue wrote:
> Currently, I find that if I enter to a mbox, then quit from it, the mbox's N
> mark will be removed, no matter whether there are news mails in it or not, not
> what I think preference for me. Can I configure it? I have set the mark_old=no
Hmm, is this by any chance the same
Hi,
* Wu, Yue wrote:
> Thank you, 'check_mbox_size' does the trick.
Hmm, how is the partition with the mboxes mounted? This option only
exists for setups where access/modification time cannot be reliably used
to detect new mail. Filesystems can be mounted to not update atime as
that causes disk
Hi,
* Cameron Simpson wrote:
> No need. For unvisited mboxen the behaviour is already ok. It is that
> mutt's sync of the folder on exit sets mtime==atime that causes the
> trouble. For some people that's what they want ("I've visited it so
> don't bug me until something _extra_ arrives") but for
On 11May2009 08:25, Derek Martin wrote:
| On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:03:39AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
| > The individual messages are still "flagged" as net but the mbox
| > container files is not. You have lost nothing except a notice that
| > the "container" is not "new".
|
| This is exa
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:49:16AM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-05-11, "Wu, Yue" wrote:
> >
> > Say, I have many mailboxes that have many new messages, but now I have no
> > so
> > much time to see all of them, so I quickly enter mailboxes one by one,
> > then
> > just pick the message I'm
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 04:48:20PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> Strange. I cannot reproduce this with $check_mbox_size unset, i.e. use
> atime vs. mtime to detect new mail. And since I cannot reproduce it, I
> cannot fix it. Attached is a patch that's supposed to reset times in
> case an mbox folder
On 2009-05-11, "Wu, Yue" wrote:
> On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 12:13:54AM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
> >
> > 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..
> >
> >
Hi,
* Derek Martin wrote:
> This is exactly what the OP was complaining about, and I completely
> agree with him. It's highly inconvenient, if you have a lot of mbox
> folders with unread e-mail in them, to go back and figure out which
> ones you care about. NO OTHER MAILER HAS THIS PROBLEM, as
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:03:39AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Wu, Yue [05-11-09 01:38]:
> > On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 12:13:54AM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I feel mutt's logic is 100% correct.. telling me there are _new_ posts
> > > on top of stuff I intially couldn't be bothered
* Wu, Yue [05-11-09 01:38]:
> On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 12:13:54AM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
> >
> > 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
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 01:37:16PM +0800, Wu, Yue wrote:
From: "Wu, Yue"
To: mutt-users@mutt.org
Subject: Re: How to let mutt always mark mbox as new if it contains new
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 12:13:54AM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
Say, I have many mailboxes that have many new mes
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 12:13:54AM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
>
> 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
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 12:13:54AM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
>
> 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 sho
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
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 11:17:37PM +0800, Wu, Yue wrote:
> No, just new emails remain the new mark, but the mbox that contains them not.
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:24:30AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
I could be totally off the mark here, but I believe the problem is
mutt's interpretation of n
* Wu, Yue [05-08-09 20:26]:
> >
> > It more likely is that he expects a folder with new mail to have the
> > "N" flag for the folder which contains new mail but not newer than his
> > last access to that folder.
>
> No, I expect the "N" flag always there, no matter the access time, if
> has new
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 04:53:50PM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote:
>
> I don't think this is Wu Yue's problem, Patrick. I could be wrong,
> but as I understand him, he is opening a mailbox, leaving some of
> the messages unread, then changing to another mailbox, then checking
> to see which mailboxes
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 07:37:45PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Wu, Yue [05-08-09 18:26]:
> >
> > >From the manpage of muttrc, it says mark_old is for:
> >
> > > Controls whether or not mutt marks new unread messages as old if you
> > > exit a mailbox without reading them.
> >
> > So it's
* Gary Johnson [05-08-09 19:57]:
>
> I don't think this is Wu Yue's problem, Patrick. I could be wrong,
> but as I understand him, he is opening a mailbox, leaving some of
> the messages unread, then changing to another mailbox, then checking
> to see which mailboxes contain new mail (perhaps wi
On 2009-05-08, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Wu, Yue [05-08-09 18:26]:
> >
> > Do you me I should fix it manually?
>
> :^), yes
>
> > >From the manpage of muttrc, it says mark_old is for:
> >
> > > Controls whether or not mutt marks new unread messages as old if you
> > > exit a mailbox withou
* Wu, Yue [05-08-09 18:26]:
>
> Do you me I should fix it manually?
:^), yes
> >From the manpage of muttrc, it says mark_old is for:
>
> > Controls whether or not mutt marks new unread messages as old if you
> > exit a mailbox without reading them.
>
> So it's for message, not for mbox. My i
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 12:20:13PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Wu, Yue [05-08-09 11:20]:
> >
> > No, just new emails remain the new mark, but the mbox that contains
> > them not.
>
> Ah, then you must correct those that have already been marked "O".
>
> t~O;N
>
>
> all on the same lin
* Patrick Shanahan [05-08-09 12:21]:
> * Wu, Yue [05-08-09 11:20]:
> >
> > No, just new emails remain the new mark, but the mbox that contains
> > them not.
>
> Ah, then you must correct those that have already been marked "O".
>
> t~O;N
>
My bad, sb: T~0;N
>
> all on the same line
>
>
* Wu, Yue [05-08-09 11:20]:
>
> No, just new emails remain the new mark, but the mbox that contains
> them not.
Ah, then you must correct those that have already been marked "O".
t~O;N
all on the same line
explanation:
t tag/tag-pattern
~O pattern, messages marked Old
; app
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:24:30AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Wu, Yue [05-08-09 10:19]:
> > Currently, I find that if I enter to a mbox, then quit from it, the
> > mbox's N mark will be removed, no matter whether there are news mails
> > in it or not, not what I think preference for me. Ca
* Wu, Yue [05-08-09 10:19]:
> Currently, I find that if I enter to a mbox, then quit from it, the
> mbox's N mark will be removed, no matter whether there are news mails
> in it or not, not what I think preference for me. Can I configure it?
> I have set the mark_old=no
Then you have configured
32 matches
Mail list logo
