[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

IMAP: new mail notification works ONLY for inbox?



  I am using IMAP server to access email (IMAP runs on my home
copmputer, I use it to read email from local machine or from other
machine, I tried several IMAP clients (mutt, netscape, mozilla, and to
certain extend kmail, balsa, maybe some other that I forgot).

  there is one problem (using all clients):

  the new mail in inbox is decected by email client and I see there is
new mail. however the new mail on other mailboxes is not detected until
I enter the mailbox.

  I use fetchmail to get emailfrom my pop3 accounts and postfix to
receive email directly, both of these use procmail to deliver email to
different mailboxes.

  can this be a problem:

  the procmail delivers the email to certain malibox but imap servers
does not have reason to check it unless some client requests mails
(headers) from given mailbox so imap server does not know about new
mails and therefore does not signal the new mail to MUA (unless MUA
enters the mailbox at which point the mailbox is read, new mail is
found).

  is there any way to use procmail to deliver mail to mailbox using some
imap facilities instead of writing to a file?

  I think the ideal situation would be if only imap server were to
access the mailboxes on file level, all other programs (MUAs, delivery)
should use imap to do the physical access.

  I would appreciate clarification of this issue (imap and mail delivery
or imap and new mail notification), I have already read the IMAP book
and some online docs but haven't found anything about this aspect of
imap mail serving. I am not sure what to check so some pointers would be
appreciated (I don't even know whether it's problem of MUAs not asking
for status of different mailboxes or the above problem of procmail and
imap both accessing mailboxes on file level or something else)

  my system:

  debian unstable, kernel 2.4.5
  uw-imapd-ssl
  various MUAs (mutt, netscape, mozilla etc.)

  TIA

	erik



Reply to: