On 2007.10.09 12:50:53 +0000, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tuesday, October 9 at 10:23 AM, quoth Rem P Roberti: > > Boy, I'm missing something here. Ok...I did have the syntax wrong, > > and now that I have the path to my mailboxes correctly stated in > > .muttrc Mutt does indeed give me a message at the bottom of the > > screen telling me that a message has arrived in the named folder. > > Excellent! Progress! :) > > > However, I was under the impression that the incoming messages would > > also be listed in the index. > > ... ummm, they are. When you view the contents of the folder they were > delivered to. > > Let me try to put this another way: mutt's index of messages is the > index of a single folder. Mutt can only ever view messages from a > single folder at a time. If you have new messages delivered to a > folder you aren't looking at, mutt will happily inform you that there > are new messages in that folder, but to see them you have to go view > that folder. Mutt will not simply add them to the index of whatever > folder you happen to be viewing currently, because to do so would be > to misrepresent the contents of the folder you're currently viewing > (and really, how would that play out, if mutt behaved the way you seem > to be assuming it does? Would all new messages in your defined > mailboxes listed in the indexes of EVERY folder that you view? How > disconcerting would *that* be?!?). > > This is the same behavior as virtually every other mail client in > existence: if you establish a rule to automatically file mail away in > a folder, by definition, it does not appear in your INBOX (if it did, > what would be the point of filing it?). > > > Otherwise, how would one get the chance to reply? > > You go open up the folder containing the new mail, read the message, > and reply to it; the same way you reply to all other mail. > > > Also, is it possible to have the filtered messages placed in their > > respective folders without all of the headers? > > That's between you and your MDA (procmail), but in general, it > depends. Some folder formats (e.g. mbox) rely on at least some of the > headers existing. What would be the point of stripping off headers? > Some misguided attempt to save a few bytes of storage? > > ~Kyle > - -- > Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that > matter. > -- Martin Luther King Jr.
Oh, brother! I didn't realize that you could get to the individual folders from within Mutt by <ESC> c. You want to laugh...I responded to your last couple of posts by cut and paste! Things are beginning to come together. Rem
