Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread Simon White
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:12:59PM -0800, VB wrote: I perused http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-6.html#commands 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

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread David T-G
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 %

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread Simon White
09-Apr-02 at 08:00, David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : 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...

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread David Collantes
On 04-09-2002 at 08:56 EDT, Simon White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Set your server to automatically purge Deleted Messages. They won't ever use it to store mail again ;-) [...] How are you accomplishing this? Is that a special IMAP server? I use IMAP from Washington University and I

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread David T-G
Simon -- ...and then Simon White said... % % 09-Apr-02 at 08:00, David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : ... % 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

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread Dan Boger
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:10:17AM -0500, David T-G wrote: Same here, and I'm only on mbox :-) I'd probably use IMAP more except for the bit where I can't go back and mark a message 'N'ew again :-( why not? works for me... The only time I wished for a trash box was when I notied a lot of

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread David T-G
Dan, et al -- ...and then Dan Boger said... % % On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:10:17AM -0500, David T-G wrote: % Same here, and I'm only on mbox :-) I'd probably use IMAP more except % for the bit where I can't go back and mark a message 'N'ew again :-( % % why not? works for me... The only

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread Dan Boger
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:27:10AM -0500, David T-G wrote: % On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:10:17AM -0500, David T-G wrote: % Same here, and I'm only on mbox :-) I'd probably use IMAP more except % for the bit where I can't go back and mark a message 'N'ew again :-( % % why not? works for

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread David T-G
Dan, et al -- ...and then Dan Boger said... % % On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:27:10AM -0500, David T-G wrote: ... % Or am I missing your point? % % yes, you are :) why can't you go back and mark a message 'N' again? It's my understanding that the IMAP design does not allow the client to write

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread Simon White
09-Apr-02 at 09:31, David Collantes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : On 04-09-2002 at 08:56 EDT, Simon White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Set your server to automatically purge Deleted Messages. They won't ever use it to store mail again ;-) [...] How are you accomplishing this? Is that

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread Simon White
09-Apr-02 at 09:10, David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : Heh :-) While I'd love to, I'm usually just the scummy contractor brought in to help clean up the mess, and somehow that never involves properly trashing (replace it with Linux! oh, shut up) or even properly configuring all of the Win

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread Dan Boger
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:42:02AM -0500, David T-G wrote: I telnetted to my imap port and simply got [zero] [9:39am] ~ telnet localhost 143 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost. Escape character is '^]'. * OK localhost IMAP4rev1 v12.264 server ready ^] telnet qui

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread David T-G
Simon -- ...and then Simon White said... % % 09-Apr-02 at 09:10, David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : % Heh :-) While I'd love to, I'm usually just the scummy contractor ... % enough work to do on the *NIX side, anyway. % % I get my own way as a contractor, as much as possible. But then I

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread Tim Kennedy
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002, David T-G wrote: so I don't know for sure what IMAP server we're running. It's not worth further checking unless my understanding is out of date or otherwise incorrect, though. You can write the 'N'ew flag back to your mailbox? Hi, David. I just tested, and I can

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread David T-G
Dan -- ...and then Dan Boger said... % % On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:42:02AM -0500, David T-G wrote: % I telnetted to my imap port and simply got ... %* OK localhost IMAP4rev1 v12.264 server ready ... % incorrect, though. You can write the 'N'ew flag back to your mailbox? % % I think

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread Dave Smith
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:55:33AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:42:02AM -0500, David T-G wrote: I telnetted to my imap port and simply got [snip] * OK localhost IMAP4rev1 v12.264 server ready I think that's the WU IMAP implementation... It looks identical to

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread Dan Boger
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:59:25AM -0500, David T-G wrote: Possibly so. Meanwhile, if you *can* write a 'N'ew flag back to any mailbox, I'll start bugging root! yup, works, no problems :) bug away! -- Dan Boger [EMAIL PROTECTED] msg26931/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread David T-G
Tim -- ...and then Tim Kennedy said... % % On Tue, 09 Apr 2002, David T-G wrote: % % incorrect, though. You can write the 'N'ew flag back to your mailbox? % % Hi, David. Hello! % % I just tested, and I can indeed write back the new flag to my mailbox. Hey, cool! % Both on a Cyrus

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread David T-G
Dave -- ...and then Dave Smith said... % % On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:55:33AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: % On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:42:02AM -0500, David T-G wrote: % I telnetted to my imap port and simply got % [snip] % * OK localhost IMAP4rev1 v12.264 server ready % I think

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-09 Thread Simon White
09-Apr-02 at 09:57, David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : % have the same calibre of client as you do, I imagine, since I'm in % Morocco. Guru status can be rapidly acheived in a place where real Gurus % all left and went to the US years ago ;-) Hmmm... Good point. Any room for more fish

Re: imap behavior

2002-04-08 Thread David Rock
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:12:59PM -0800, VB wrote: I perused http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-6.html#commands 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