Hello Matthias, On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 07:40:02AM +0200, Matthias Apitz wrote: > I Cc'ed the author of the article: fa...@ariis.it > Please keep him/her in Cc when you reply.
Big smile, the author and the poster are in this case the same person: myself. :P > Thanks for this pointer. The doc describes exactly the problem. But, the > proposed solution with a macro deleting threads which follow the rule > (copied from the doc): > > "Threads with only replies means threads where the originating post > isn’t present; if it is not present is because we deleted it; if we > deleted it we didn’t like it and we don’t want replies to it, too." > > is not good. Sometimes (many times) I have saved the original post of a > "good" thread in some place, for example into the mbox file ~/Mail/mutt and > so the > above pattern would touch/delete a "good" thread also as a "bad" one. > > A solution must be based on some kind of a local "database" file of threads > marked as > "bad" threads (perhaps as patterns) and one must actively store the given > "bad" thread into it, for example with <ESC>M and then a <ESC>D would > later, even in the next mutt session, read this "database" file and delete > all threads from the actual mailbox for all patterns in it. Useful remarks! Indeed a 100% solution *has* to pass from some kind of database/list of good/bad threads. For not, marking a message as "important" saves the thread (even if broken) from touch/delete; this alleviates the pain in some cases. -F
