Re: Feature request: cross-mbox threading
Hi. Just minor addition, else, I think this has been discussed quite thourougly now. On Sat 2002-07-06 at 11:07:53 +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote: * Benjamin Pflugmann [02-07-05 23:56:08 +0200] wrote: On Fri 2002-07-05 at 01:36:52 +0200, Rocco Rutte 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? No, not a trick question. Just a different path of thought. I (mis-)understood correspondence more like thread and not as communication partner. Greetings, Benjamin. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] msg29430/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Feature request: cross-mbox threading
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
Re: Feature request: cross-mbox threading
Hi. 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? I do not think so. The work to do would not be significantly more than with one folder and threading enabled. Sure, it takes some time, but that it already does with one folder, which you suggested as work-around. Well, the code added would have to read mails from a few additional folders instead of just one. 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. Or are we talking at cross-issues? I have a problem with the checks involved allthough it may be quite less. I also run mutt on a really old machine where every portion of new code makes working unnecessarily hard. Well, the behaviour would be optional. One if-case doesn't cost much in this case. 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. 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... [...] Currently I have a macro defined which files the message in the archive folder as mark that it has been done. I do it completely different without creating the need of such a flag on my own. I also keep a state 'done' which I nicely work around without another flag. My filter creates an archive I usually read only. A mail is considered to be 'done' if I delete it from the folder. I see my folders as a kind of temporary place. Older folders are compressed and can be read using the rr.compressed patch. Outgoing mail is saved to the same archive folder, so I have all I need in one place. If I did not misunderstand you, that is exactly what I have, except that I move the mails only after they are done. But this does not matter in this case. To repeat: New mails are filed in a seperate folder, there is also an archive folder. Outgoing mails go directly to the archive. Mails are deleted from the incoming folder, when done (and for me, also moved to the archive). And additionally, the archive is also compressed. ;-) 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. 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. On the other hand, I delete/file done mails at once, because I need to be able to see quickly, if there are undone mails pending. And unread would not work, because priorities often demand that I read all e-mails, but do not process the unimportant ones for some days. [...] 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? ;-) [...] If you find this feature that usefull, well, than start coding it... ;-) As I said initially in my first mail, I am not sure whether I agree with the original poster about the solution. I just wanted to show that the requested feature would indeed solve a problem which has no direct solution yet. Greetings, Benjamin. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] msg29405/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Feature request: cross-mbox threading
Hi, Situation: I usually have to switch between =mbox and =outbox to check the mails on a specific topic we've gone on for a while. Sometimes, another one, say =work/project-A, needs to get involved, too. The same case happens among =mbox.mutt, =outbox, and =mlist/mutt for my daily life. (=mbox,mutt is the in-coming one, =mlist/mutt is for saving the mail I'd like to keep.) Request: Is it possible to have a cross-mbox-threading function as following: 1. A variable, say ref-mboxes (Type: string, default: =mbox:=outbox), to specify related mboxes to reference. The mailbox in front of ':' is the main (or working) mail box, the right side lists the mailboxes to reference. You can add more reference groups by separating them with ';'. 2. A variable, say cross-reference (Type: boolean, default: no), to turn on or off the cross-reference. It will make the referenced mail appear/disappear on the index. 3. When you work on your coming-in =mbox, you can see the threading also reference to those mails in =outbox. (with some display difference) Not all the mails in =outbox appear in current work session - only those belonging to the threads in =mbox will appear. The mails of ref. mailboxes can be read but are read-only. User can not delete or edit them. (unless another variable 'allow-change-ref-mbox' is turned on) It's to avoid confusing. I found such 3-way cross-reference is quite common in my life, and hope it to come true. Thanks. best regards, charlie
