Van --

...and then VB said...
% In MS Outlook, actual deletion from the imap server is a two-step process.

Right; that's IMAP in general.

% Is mutt capable of simulating this behavior; does it retain the "marked for
% deletion" and "purged" distinction?  So far, mutt takes my messages off of
% the imap server, and is so impolite that it does *not* leave a copy for
% future reference.  I.e., there is nothing left to purge.

Yes and no.  

BTW, if mutt takes your messages off the server, then either you're
telling it to wipe them or you're not connecting via IMAP; mutt pulls
down headers for the index page and then bodies at read time but does
not delete the server copy until you mark it deleted in your index and
then sync.  You're probably telling it to wipe them, from what I read in
your message, but it's not being impolite about it.

Unfortunately for IMAP users, mutt does not have the concept of separate
write-status-back-to-mailbox and purge-away-deleted-messages commands;
when one syncs, mutt will purge any messages marked for deletion.  While
mutt can open a mailbox with a message marked this way (say via a procmail
rule), it can't write a message with the delete flag back to a mailbox.
Some might argue that it should have this ability.

During your reading you could have a limit that does not show deleted
messages, and that would keep your inbox clean, but if you closed mutt
with a sync the messages would be gone and if you closed mutt without
syncing your 'D' flags would be gone.

Your best bet is probably a trash folder implementation, where you throw
away messages that you don't really want to throw away (I've never
understood the Deleted Messages folder and why some people keep every
darned thing in there...  It's a real hell for SysAdmins trying to manage
disk space!) into some other folder.  You might see if Cedric Duval's
trash_folder patch works with IMAP mailboxes, but I doubt it.

Hmmm...  In thinking a bit about this, I realized that you could write
"DELETE" or whatever you want into the X-Label: field and then hide
messages based on that and, later on, purge them away also based on that.
You lose the ability to take any notes in there for those messages, but
what do you care if you're going to delete them anyway?  So something like

  macro index ,d <edit-label>DELETE<enter><limit>! ~y DELETE<enter>
  macro pager ,d <edit-label>DELETE<enter><limit>! ~y DELETE<enter>
  macro index ,D <delete-pattern>~y DELETE<enter><sync>

would probably do you, though that's from the hip and untested.  In
particular I don't know about limiting from the pager view and about
resolution; you might have to quit the pager and get to the index first,
which would make this kinda klunky for one-key mailbox reading.

% I perused and I did
% not see that mutt follows the MS Outlook conventions I described.  I saw
% "mh_purge" is related to "renaming deleted messages," but it's not clear if
% this is what I am referring to.

Nope; that won't do for you.

% Can someone please speak to this?

Hello?  Hello?  Is this on?  What are you doing today, this? ;-)

% Van


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]    Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!

Attachment: msg26909/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to