Am 2015-08-19 23:34, schrieb Kevin J. McCarthy:
Thanks for the feedback! While I sympathize with the problem, I'm
reluctant to commit this kind of patch at this point. I'll add it to
the post-release list though.
Thanks. If you rather like a different approach, just tell me, so I can
do it differently. Perhaps a special pointer argument, that indicates
an error for mutt_expand_path?
2) I don't know for how long we have been running mutt with the trash
folder patch. It looks quite clean to me. So would you consider
integrating this patch upstream?
I haven't ever taken a look at that patch, so I'd have to look at it
more closely. I haven't had any problem just using:
folder-hook . 'macro index,pager d
"<save-message>=INBOX.Trash<enter>"'
folder-hook =INBOX\.Trash 'macro index,pager d <delete-message>'
folder-hook '=INBOX\.Junk Mail' 'macro index,pager d
<delete-message>'
The wiki used to say that didn't work with tagged messages, but that's
no
longer true. Also, it keeps me from moving spam to my trash when
deleted.
I have been using that approach for long enough, that I know it can
cause
several annoyances. First, while I appreciate the flexibility of
folder-hooks
(and use them myself for several different purposes), I don't think it
is reasonable, to have every user invent their own, to make use of a
trash
folder.
Second, you would probably have to add some <tag-prefix-cond>
<end-cond> tags, to make this work properly with tagged messages. This
adds to
the burden that every user has to invent their own solution.
Third, if you press 'd' on a message, later undelete the message
and even later delete the message one more time, you will end up with
many copies of the same message in your trash folder
Fourth, does not work with <delete-pattern> and similar functions.
Fifth, http://cedricduval.free.fr/mutt/patches/#trash also mentions
The folder history doesn't clutter up with unwanted trash entries.
(I am not sure, what is meant with this one)
To sum up, since I use the folder-trash patch, every little quirk
of the folder-hook workaround has been solved and I haven't encountered
any problem with it. It just works the way one would expect it to.
Anyway, no promises, but I will take a look at it.
Thanks.
Best,
Christian
