On 2009-01-03, Kyle Wheeler <kyle-m...@memoryhole.net> wrote: > On Friday, January 2 at 02:16 PM, quoth Gary Johnson: > > Wrong. I can do that now. Using multiple mutts to access one > > mailbox has the problem that each instance of mutt has its own idea > > of the status of each message and that status can't currently be > > sync'd among multiple mutts. What would be nice is a way to have > > one mutt display multiple views of the same mailbox. > > I get your point, assuming you meant *unsynchronized* status changes. > Because the way you sync status among multiple mutts is to save your > changes to the mailbox (i.e. <sync-mailbox>). In essence, if I > understand you, you're saying that you want multiple mutt instances to > know things that are not saved to disk (or that the IMAP server > doesn't know).
Right. Also, as I understand it, syncing a mailbox means that mutt writes the statuses that are in memory to disk--mutt doesn't try to reconcile statuses on disk with those in memory, except for new messages. Therefore, if mutt instance A changes the status of message 1 and mutt instance B changes the status of message 2, there is no way to get both those changes into the on-disk mailbox. Regards, Gary
