* On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Im Eunjea wrote: > * John Iverson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04-25 13:40]: > > [...] > > > > > > > I'm using this: > > > > > > macro index "\Cx" \ > > > "<tag-pattern>~N<enter><tag-prefix><toggle-new><tag-prefix><clear-flag>*" \ > > > "Mark all boring new msgs" > > > > This malfunctions if there are no N(ew) messages by incorrectly > > setting N on the highlighted message. Note that you therefore > > can't run it twice in a row (unless you happen to get a new > > message in the interval). It will also set N on any non-N(ew) > > tagged messages. You should replace <toggle-new> with > > <clear-flag>N. > > why run twice? and I can see there N(ew) flag or not. (and you?) ;)
You would not normally run it twice. I'm just using that to show that it fails when there are no New mails. The intention of the macro is to clear N flags (turn them off), not to toggle them. Also, if you have any tagged non-New messages when you run your macro, their N flags get turned back on. I'm sure it works with the way you use it -- I'm just suggesting how to make it more robust. > > I like Sven's version because it leaves the messages tagged so > > you can see which messages were affected, but no further action > > is required. The tags are cleared when you change mailboxes. > > > > that's why I using <toggle-new>. I don't like leave tags there. I was talking about tagged messages, not the New (N) flag. If you just replace <toggle-new> with <clear-flag>N in your macro, it should work the same as before, without failing in the cases I mentioned. The <tag-prefix><clear-flag>* at the end will still clear the tags, right? -- John
