On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:10:54PM +0100, Chris G wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 08:05:31PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > > > [1] > > If mutt knows not to flag the transferred email as new, then it also > > knows enough not chuck up the erroneous "New mail" message. The logic > > used for the message flags is different from that used for confusing > > the user with a false message, it appears. > > > Yes, the N[ew], O[ld] and other flags are actually written to the mbox > as I understand it - yes, just looked, there's a Status: line in the > message header which has flags in it.
Yes, and when the "Status:" header is missing, the message is "New". That began to become evident when I started throwing a fudged message into my "todo" mailbox, to make it "New", to prompt me to look in there. > Scanning for new messages is done (for mbox) by looking to see if the > mbox file has changed since last read. Presumably mutt doesn't look > at the header Status: line because that would take too long. Yes, but the primitive nature of the scanning is causing the false detection of "New" mail. > It's a pity that there isn't an option to tell mutt to use the Status: > header to check for new messages, on a fast single-user system that > would be quite fast enough and much more accurate. There is a much faster way, as I've proposed on your other thread "A wish for the mailboxes command". On my system though, it would be enough for mutt to check six times per hour, since that is how often the mailhost is polled. Here the method would not have to be ultra high speed. Erik -- A computer is like an air conditioner, it works poorly when you open Windows.
