On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 05:49:23PM +0000, Chris G wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 03:26:41PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> > The former.  It does what I said, and (at least when the destination
> > is local and you do not specify an alternative program to use) does
> > *not* do what you said, though I admit, it seems like it ought to, or
> > that there should be two separate flags that control access time
> > preservation for each source and destination files.  If you don't
> > believe me, try it... then run stat on all the files you copied.
> > I did.
> > 
> Er, surely copying a file won't change the modification time of the
> copied file anyway will it?

No, it does not change the modification time.  However it does change
the *access time*, which mutt compares to the modification time to
determine if the mailbox contains new mail.  It uses this shortcut
instead of parsing the file to determine if a mailbox contains new
mail, because it's much faster and reasonably (but not completely)
reliable.

-- 
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.

Attachment: pgp9u5JbJcdA5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to