Steve Lamb: > Jochen Schulz wrote: >> I am now seeing that mutt has a "trash" option which moves mail to a >> designated trash folder instead of deleting from the server. I don't use >> that, though. (Coincidentally, it appears to be buggy: #448241.) > > And it is this that I was referring to since it is what matches > TBird's behavior of having a trash folder.
Ok, now I understand your complaint. If mutt's implementation of an IMAP
copy consists of fetching an old mail and storing it as a new mail in
another folder (instead of using server-side copy), that's quite
seriously broken. But as far as I can see, this only happens when using
the "trash" option (which is broken anyway, you cannot delete from the
trash folder).
But ok, I conclude there actually are flaws. I just don't happen to be
affected by them.
J.
--
When I am doing sex I wonder if my emotions can be detected by alien
civilisations.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
