On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 00:01:18 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> Oops, if I'd seen this message before I sent my last post, I probably
> wouldn't have bothered to post it.
>
> That said, I will take issue with the notion that mbox is a terrible
> format: It isn't. It does, however, have usage patte
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 23:25:18 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 08:37:50AM +0200, Sebastian Stein wrote:
...
> > When I open a folder, I can mark a mail as new. How does mutt keep track of
> > this flag? Is this stored inside mbox file?
>
> Yes. It's stored in a message head
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 08:37:50AM +0200, Sebastian Stein wrote:
> Kevin J. McCarthy [200716 18:18]:
> > If the access time is earlier than the modification time, it notifies for
> > new mail.
>
> Wow, what a bad algorithm. I mean, this was probably perfect 20 years ago,
> but in times of desktop
Oops, if I'd seen this message before I sent my last post, I probably
wouldn't have bothered to post it.
That said, I will take issue with the notion that mbox is a terrible
format: It isn't. It does, however, have usage patterns for which
it is not well suited... just like maildir does. If you
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 08:37:50 +0200, Sebastian Stein wrote:
> Kevin J. McCarthy [200716 18:18]:
> > If the access time is earlier than the modification time, it notifies for
> > new mail.
>
> Wow, what a bad algorithm.
It is a super cheap test with zero storage overhead.
> I mean, this was p
Kevin J. McCarthy [200716 18:18]:
> If the access time is earlier than the modification time, it notifies for
> new mail.
Wow, what a bad algorithm. I mean, this was probably perfect 20 years ago,
but in times of desktop search engines, cloud backup services, etc.
something more advanced is neede
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 09:03:59AM +0200, Sebastian Stein wrote:
Kevin J. McCarthy [200715 08:28]:
Have you checked the access time vs modification time of those
mailboxes? Capture them before and after procmail, and then
launching Mutt. See if this gives any clues.
Can you describe the al
Kevin J. McCarthy [200715 08:28]:
> Have you checked the access time vs modification time of those mailboxes?
> Capture them before and after procmail, and then launching Mutt. See if
> this gives any clues.
Can you describe the algorithm how to determine if a mbox file has new
mails? Is this on
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:07:10PM +0200, Sebastian Stein wrote:
set folder="$HOME/Mail"
mailboxes `cd $HOME/Mail; echo P-*|sed -e 's/P-/+&/g'`
mailboxes `cd $HOME/Mail; echo L-*|sed -e 's/L-/+&/g'`
Since you are prefixing your mailboxes with '+' (as you should!), this
precludes the problem be
Kevin J. McCarthy [200714 21:46]:
> Mike's reported bug was triggered by relative path mailboxes. Instead of:
> set folder = "~/Mail"
> mailboxes =a =b =c
> he had:
> set folder = "~/Mail"
> mailboxes a b c
> where a, b, and c were then resolved relative to the mutt starting
> directory,
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 08:26:07AM +0200, Sebastian Stein wrote:
Kevin J. McCarthy [200708 08:59]:
> Perhaps some combination of settings is causing this. Would you mind
> forwarding your configuration to me, so I can try to reproduce with
> that?
Thanks to Mike's help paring down his configu
Kevin J. McCarthy [200708 08:59]:
> > Perhaps some combination of settings is causing this. Would you mind
> > forwarding your configuration to me, so I can try to reproduce with
> > that?
>
> Thanks to Mike's help paring down his configuration to a minimal reproduce,
> I was able to find the pr
On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 12:18:40PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 08:34:54PM +0200, mi...@posteo.nl wrote:
* On 07.07. Kevin J. McCarthy muttered:
Do you have $mail_check_stats set?
No.
Perhaps some combination of settings is causing this. Would you mind
forwardin
On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 08:34:54PM +0200, mi...@posteo.nl wrote:
* On 07.07. Kevin J. McCarthy muttered:
Do you have $mail_check_stats set?
No.
Perhaps some combination of settings is causing this. Would you mind
forwarding your configuration to me, so I can try to reproduce with
that?
* On 07.07. Kevin J. McCarthy muttered:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 08:39:49PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> >Also, I wonder if you would mind trying a vanilla mutt 1.14.5 release.
Here vanilla mutt 1.14.5 also looses the information of the
new-mail-folder like stated for Gentoo-mutt 1.13.5 or
On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 08:39:49PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
Also, I wonder if you would mind trying a vanilla mutt 1.14.5 release.
A quick test on my side wasn't able to duplicate this, so it would be
nice to make sure it isn't a Gentoo patch causing the problem.
After taking a closer
On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 08:12:38PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 04:49:37AM +0200, mi...@posteo.nl wrote:
My issue seems to be similar to this:
http://lists.mutt.org/pipermail/mutt-users/Week-of-Mon-20200106/001471.html
Mike, would you mind opening a ticket on gitlab
On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 04:49:37AM +0200, mi...@posteo.nl wrote:
My issue seems to be similar to this:
http://lists.mutt.org/pipermail/mutt-users/Week-of-Mon-20200106/001471.html
Mike, would you mind opening a ticket on gitlab with all these details?
I'll take a closer look and see what I can
Hi,
My issue seems to be similar to this:
http://lists.mutt.org/pipermail/mutt-users/Week-of-Mon-20200106/001471.html
I'm running procmail and mbox folders on Gentoo. mutt-1.10.1 works fine.
When using mutt 1.13.5 or 1.14.4-r1 opening an additional session makes the
first session forget about fo
19 matches
Mail list logo
