* John Iverson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04-25 14:19]: > * 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? >
Ok, got it, Thanks. :) -- http://kldp.org/~eunjea/
