* Benjamin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [27-12-2001 18:32]:
| > I was thinking of that too, but since mutt still knows how to mark the
| > messages to be deleted after the purge, why not delete them after the
| > check... ?
|
| Good question... Currently the code just does this (in
| mbox_sync_mailbox):
|
| /* Check to make sure that the file hasn't changed on disk */
| if ((i = mbox_check_mailbox (ctx, index_hint)) == M_NEW_MAIL || i == M_REOPEN
| {
| /* new mail arrived, or mailbox reopened */
| need_sort = i;
| rc = i;
| goto bail;
| }I know too little of mutt development to implement the improvement. I can imagine setting some flag that will result in a recursive call of mbox_sync_mailbox if there are any mails marked for deletion. But, again, I have no clue what the side effects may be ;) | > To get what you want, STOP doing what isn't working. | > -Dennis Weaver | | We could, but where's the fun of fixing it? That's the addition to the quote, STOP doing what isn't working, START fixing it!!! Anybody more ideas on this subject? -- René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) There's a difference between beauty and charm. A beautiful woman is one I notice. A charming woman is one who notices me. -John Erskine
msg21952/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
