Bug? Pressing $ when new mail arrives
Scenario: When I press $ to purge the deleted messages in my mailbox, and it asks me: Purge 8 deleted messages? ([yes]/no): and I answer yes, if new mail has arrived that mutt didn't see yet, it will show the new mail and *abort* the purge operation. Is this a bug/is there a workaround for this?
Re: Bug? Pressing $ when new mail arrives
* Philip Mak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Dec 27. 2001 11:10]: Scenario: When I press $ to purge the deleted messages in my mailbox, and it asks me: Purge 8 deleted messages? ([yes]/no): and I answer yes, if new mail has arrived that mutt didn't see yet, it will show the new mail and *abort* the purge operation. Is this a bug/is there a workaround for this? If you don't want to be asked, I think you want this: ### delete ### Type: quadoption ### Default: ask-yes ### Controls whether or not messages are really deleted when closing or ### synchronizing a mailbox. If set to yes, messages marked for deleting ### will automatically be purged without prompting. If set to no, messages ### marked for deletion will be kept in the mailbox. set delete=yes That what I set and I don't get the prompt. I'm no veteran though, -- Brian Clark | Avoiding the general public since 1805! Fingerprint: 07CE FA37 8DF6 A109 8119 076B B5A2 E5FB E4D0 C7C8 We are all fugitives of our own fate.
Re: Bug? Pressing $ when new mail arrives
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Brian Clark wrote: if new mail has arrived that mutt didn't see yet, it will show the new mail and *abort* the purge operation. Is this a bug/is there a workaround for this? If you don't want to be asked, I think you want this: ### delete ### Type: quadoption ### Default: ask-yes ### Controls whether or not messages are really deleted when closing or ### synchronizing a mailbox. That's not what I was talking about, actually. I was saying that when it asks me Purge 8 deleted messages? ([yes]/no): and I answer yes, it DOES NOT purge the messages if new mail has just arrived.
Re: Bug? Pressing $ when new mail arrives
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 11:20:07AM -0500, Philip Mak wrote: On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Brian Clark wrote: if new mail has arrived that mutt didn't see yet, it will show the new mail and *abort* the purge operation. Is this a bug/is there a workaround for this? If you don't want to be asked, I think you want this: ### delete ### Type: quadoption ### Default: ask-yes ### Controls whether or not messages are really deleted when closing or ### synchronizing a mailbox. That's not what I was talking about, actually. I was saying that when it asks me Purge 8 deleted messages? ([yes]/no): and I answer yes, it DOES NOT purge the messages if new mail has just arrived. I've found this irritating too, but since it does no actual harm I don't really worry about it, especially since I don't delete mail often. I think I may happen because if the mailbox has been modified (mbox format) mutt may not be able to identify the relevant messages to remove easily? -- Benjamin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] msg21945/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug? Pressing $ when new mail arrives
* Benjamin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [27-12-2001 17:47]: | That's not what I was talking about, actually. I was saying that when it | asks me Purge 8 deleted messages? ([yes]/no): and I answer yes, it DOES | NOT purge the messages if new mail has just arrived. | | | I've found this irritating too, but since it does no actual harm I don't | really worry about it, especially since I don't delete mail often. I | think I may happen because if the mailbox has been modified (mbox | format) mutt may not be able to identify the relevant messages to remove | easily? 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... ? -- René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) To get what you want, STOP doing what isn't working. -Dennis Weaver msg21947/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug? Pressing $ when new mail arrives
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 05:53:40PM +0100, René Clerc wrote:
* Benjamin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [27-12-2001 17:47]:
| That's not what I was talking about, actually. I was saying that when it
| asks me Purge 8 deleted messages? ([yes]/no): and I answer yes, it DOES
| NOT purge the messages if new mail has just arrived.
|
|
| I've found this irritating too, but since it does no actual harm I don't
| really worry about it, especially since I don't delete mail often. I
| think I may happen because if the mailbox has been modified (mbox
| format) mutt may not be able to identify the relevant messages to remove
| easily?
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;
}
--
René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
To get what you want, STOP doing what isn't working.
-Dennis Weaver
We could, but where's the fun of fixing it?
--
Benjamin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msg21950/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug? Pressing $ when new mail arrives
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Benjamin Smith wrote:
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;
}
Hmm... mutt's paradigm is to work gracefully even when there are different
processes accessing the same mailbox at the same time. Let's imagine what
would happen if person 1 and person 2 are both accessing the same mailbox,
and we made mutt continue to expunge the messages even after it detects a
change in the mailbox:
1. Person #1 presses $ and is asked whether to expunge messages.
2. Person #2 deletes a message.
3. Person #2 notices that he deleted the wrong message and wants
to undelete it.
4. Person #1 presses y, causing all deleted messages to be
expunged, including the one that Person #2 wanted to undelete.
I'm guessing that's why the mutt authors coded $ to abort in case of a
mailbox modification; if they just made it blindly not abort, then mutt
would lose some transaction safety.
I think a better way of handling this would be for mutt to remember what
messages were marked as deleted when $ was pressed. If the user then
confirms the deletion but mutt detects a changed mailbox, it should go
read the mailbox again, then delete any messages that were originally
marked as deleted and are still marked as deleted.
I may not be fully aware of any problems in implementing this, though
(maybe my reasoning is flawed somewhere, maybe there's a technical reason
that makes it difficult to implement this, etc.).
Re: Bug? Pressing $ when new mail arrives
* 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/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug? Pressing $ when new mail arrives
Philip, et al -- ...and then Philip Mak said... % % Scenario: When I press $ to purge the deleted messages in my mailbox, % and it asks me: % % Purge 8 deleted messages? ([yes]/no): % % and I answer yes, if new mail has arrived that mutt didn't see yet, it % will show the new mail and *abort* the purge operation. Is this a bug/is % there a workaround for this? I don't think it's a bug; I think it's a design decision. The later discussions of multiple people accessing the same mailbox make sense, but I personally think it's just because one might change one's mind about whether or not to delete a message if new mail comes in. HTH HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg21958/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug? Pressing $ when new mail arrives
Philip, et al -- ...and then Philip Mak said... % ... % I think a better way of handling this would be for mutt to remember what % messages were marked as deleted when $ was pressed. If the user then % confirms the deletion but mutt detects a changed mailbox, it should go % read the mailbox again, then delete any messages that were originally % marked as deleted and are still marked as deleted. This can't be done, AFAIK, under mbox; when a message is flagged for deletion, you will either purge it with a sync (or a write) or keep it and toss the flag if you exit without changes. As a result, mutt won't ever write a deletion flag back to an mbox file -- and the example of reading a changed mailbox to look for still marked as deleted will fail. [Note that one can be there when the file is opened; I procmail in a flag to mark some junk for as it arrives but not throw it away because I want to know that it has come in and sometimes want to read it.] % % I may not be fully aware of any problems in implementing this, though % (maybe my reasoning is flawed somewhere, maybe there's a technical reason % that makes it difficult to implement this, etc.). Other than the mbox example above, I dunno nothin' :-) HTH HAND Happy Holidays to all :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg21960/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
