On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 10:32:09AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > On Monday, June 1 at 10:27 PM, quoth Patrick Welche: > >So the first question is, am I missing a new setting in mutt? > > No - mutt's current behavior uses both \Unseen and \Recent along with > its own header cache in order to be reliable across multiple brands of > IMAP servers. > > >And then how do I tell whether it is a mutt or a cyrus problem? > > First, try deleting mutt's cache and see if that helps. If it doesn't, > compile mutt with debugging enabled, and then run it with the argument > '-d 5'. It will then create a debug-log in ~/.muttdebug0, which will > contain a record of the full IMAP conversation. Then we can see what > Cyrus told mutt, and whether mutt is doing something intelligent with > what Cyrus sent us.
Now I'm even more confused: mutt says after several days of not reading mail, mutt says: Msgs:220272 New:6 Old:710 and those refer to the 6 new messages I received while it is open. Then, leaving mutt open, I tried imtest localhost to the cyrus imap server and: . examine inbox * FLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Draft \Deleted \Seen $MDNSent Junk NonJunk Old) * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS ()] * 220272 EXISTS * 0 RECENT * OK [UNSEEN 214633] * OK [UIDVALIDITY 1067797702] * OK [UIDNEXT 710439] * OK [NOMODSEQ] Sorry, modsequences have not been enabled on this mailbox * OK [URLMECH INTERNAL] . OK [READ-ONLY] Completed So, would mutt actually say 0 new? Cheers, Patrick
