Hi,
* Benjamin Pflugmann [02-07-05 23:56:08 +0200] wrote:
> On Fri 2002-07-05 at 01:36:52 +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> > * Benjamin Pflugmann [02-07-05 00:44:50 +0200] wrote:
> [...]
> > I misunderstood him (completely) but one may specify a
> > limit pattern to show only the mails of one
> > correspondence.
> How?
Hmm, is that a trick question? You limit to mails from you
to A and to mails from A to you. Or did I miss something,
again?
> But my point was that your suggestion would have all the
> mails in one folder instead. I cannot see loading 3 x 1000
> messages being significantly slower/faster than 1 x 3000.
It would be the same.
> > You can also make mutt save the mail to the folder it
> > was sent from.
> I already have in- and outgoing mails in the same folder.
> Don't know if that matters to the original poster.
I think so. The scenario was to have incomming in +inbox and
outgoing mail in +outbox.
> > You can limit to every mail not from you. If you don't
> > need the thread anymore, move it to the archive.
> Well, that is exactly the point. If I moved it to the
> archive and get a new message and have to look it up...
Well, that is a question of how long you keep stuff. For
lists it's unlikely that a response will be send to a mail
which is a few weeks old, for example.
> The problem arises (or more precisly: the requested
> feature could be of use), when a new mail arrives, which
> belongs to an "done" thread and I have to look it up in
> the archive.
In this case you know how important reasonable quoting can
be... ;-) Seriously, you're right allthough I see this as a
question of how long you keep mail. I do have extra-lookups,
too, but not very often. And as my archive is quite big
(because it keeps just everything in one place) it's no
difference to me wether I start a second mutt loading a few
thousand mails or turning this feature on. In the latter
case mutt would have to iterate through the whole big
archive, too.
> As I said, that mainly happens only with support mails to
> me, so maybe you simply do not encounter this, because you
> do no support? This includes two things: Getting mails
> after a long period of time (more than a month), which
> continues an old thread, and people unable to quote
> significant context in such mails.
So, I guess that in your case this feature would be usefull.
Or you just set up a newsserver and use mutt as your
newsreader. ;-)
> > I don't want to say that such a feature would be useless
> > at all, I just say it's useless to me since I've
> > organized my communication to not require such features.
> Or because you do not get the kind of mails I get? ;-)
Bcc me and we'll see... ;-)
> I just wanted to show that the requested feature would
> indeed solve a problem which has no direct solution yet.
And all I tried to say is that there're great features one
may use to achieve the same. I know that a line has to be
drawn somewhere because working around everything would work
like a charm ('telnet localhost pop') but isn't very
convenient.
Cheers, Rocco
