On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 03:59:22PM +0000, Dave Pearson wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 05:40:03PM +0100, Heinrich Langos wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:05:01PM +0000, Dave Pearson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:24:40PM +0100, Heinrich Langos wrote:
> > >
> > > > the problem with "-y" is that it simply doesn't work reliably.
> > >
> > > Yes it does.
> >
> > No it doesn't. Been there, tried it.
>
> Then your experience is different from mine. I've been using mutt since
> before the mailboxes feature was added and, apart from the documented issues
> (which you quoted) it has always worked reliably. That's why I'm saying it
> does work reliably. The only things I've ever seen that can affect it are
> those that are documented.
>
[...]
>
> The quote is informing you that external processes might change the
> timestamp behaviour.
leading to non-detection of new mail ... i don't want mutt to tell me
if i or some programms have accessed the mailbox. i want it to tell me
if there is new mail in there.
BTW: pointing your finger at evil software that doesn't conform to
standards will not solve the problem. if that was enough, nobody at the
samba development team would have to care about yet another
microsoft-"extention" of standards.
> > So please stop defending mutt's weakness in this area and lets try to
> > think of a way to improve mutt. I love mutt and I want it to suck even
> > less! :-)
>
> Please don't suggest that I'm defending a weakness, I'm not. I am pointing
> out that it does what it says in the documentation. It points out it's own
> weakness and that other than the documented issues it's reliable.
sorry, but the documented issues is what i am ranting about and what i
proposed a solution for. documenting an issue may be enough for M$ or
IBM. working to resolve the documented issue is what open source is
about, isn't it?
> > or is there a _reasonable_ opposition against saving status information
> > that i don't see?
>
> Saving such information won't help you work out how many new mails there
> are, or if there is new mail at all. It would let you know if the mailbox
> had been modified in some way, which is pretty much what mutt does right
> now.
nope ... right now mutt only shows that the mailbox has been accessed.
not if it has been modified.
right now a simple grep will screw up new mail detection.
try this:
$ echo blah | mail yourself@localhost
$ grep something /var/spool/mail/yourself
$ mutt -y
and you see no "N" ... pretty sad, isn't it?
if mutt would realy show modification i would instantly shut up.
i'm not saying that mutt should constantly scan the whole mailboxes or
anything like that. i just say it could do so on request. or on
startup. but it seems that i am the only one with that problem. so i
guess i'll have to roll my own mutt. i guess the code that is needed
is already in there... it just needs some tweaking.
-heinrich
ps: sorry for my uppish tone ... but i have recently had an overdose
of "it's free. quit moaning!"-attitude. :)
--
Heinrich Langos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgp: http://wh9.tu-dresden.de/~heinrich/pub_pgp_key.asc
_________________________________________________________________
|o| The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. |o|
|o| It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new |o|
|o| version I ever heard. -- Bill Gates, Microsoft Corporation |o|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
