On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 04:29:24PM +0000, Chris G wrote: > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 11:58:27AM +0000, Chris G wrote: > > Is there any way I can force mutt to scan all files in 'mailboxes' for > > new mail?
Not exactly... > > However when I come to read mail in the morning the incoming E-Mail has > > been accessed by my backup system and the above mechanism doesn't work. > > I know one way to solve the problem would be to make the backup system a > > bit cleverer but that's rather difficult at the moment. That's the best solution, and depending on the exact nature of "rather difficult" I'd suggest you pursue that. If you really just can't, then the alternative that's most likely to work for you is to set $check_mbox_size. I seem to recall that this is also not without its problems, though other than the obvious case of the mbox changing in such a way that its size does not. But if there were other problems, I can't recall what they were... > > If I look in the individual mbox files the new mail *is* actually marked > > as N[ew] by the mail delivery program. So, is there a way to get mutt > > to scan the mbox files in my mailboxes list and flag up which ones have > > new mail? ... and is the only reason for not doing this by default that > > it would be slow? > > No answers? Is that because this is a really silly question or what? > > What I want is a means to ask mutt to scan the individual messages in > each mbox file in the mailboxes list to look for messages which have 'N' > in the Status: header. FWIW, most mail systems, AFAIK, don't actually deliver mail with a 'N' in the Status header. Rather, they deliver the mail with no status header at all. The status header usually only contains 'N' if the user's mailer added it after the user actually read the mail, and told the mailer it wanted the message to be treated as new. Regardless, Mutt lacks this feature. The historical reason is that for large mailboxes, it's slow. I've argued for years that a) this is mostly not true on any reasonable hardware, and b) so what if it is? It's the only way to do new mail detection *properly*, and if that's what the user wants, it should be possible to ask for it. Of course, someone would need to write the code... -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgpUiNGuHsiv2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
