Re: MUAs and timestamps, was Re: how to grep without changing timestamps?
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 07:58:00PM -0500, D-Man wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 07:35:06PM -0500, Chris Gray wrote:
> | >>>>> D-Man writes:
> |
> | d> | How is mutt (or any other MUA) meant to do it then?
> | d> |
> |
> | d> By checking the file itself for new messages, rather than
> | d> relying on the timestamp. Some MUA's handle new messages in
> | d> folders better. (ie, you can open up the mailbox, not read
> | d> anything, and it still says new -- mutt doesn't)
> |
> | Only now, when the user has 1e6 messages in his inbox because he
> | never deletes any, he opens mutt and then goes on his coffee break and
> | gets back before mutt is done scanning the messages. Also, where is
>
> Yeah, it's not perfect. As I said in my quoted paragraph below the
> current system probably solves a lot of developer headaches with such
> situations. Who's going to save 1e6 messages anyways? Even if you
> do, are you even going to remember any but the last dozen or so? (but
> I'm not going to argue the point so don't bother answering the q's :-))
>
> | mutt supposed to keep the information about which messages were
> | previously in the folder?
> |
>
> In the folder itself. There is a header that has this info, just
> open it in vim or something. I did some checking just now and
> couldn't find it in my mutt mbox. I have seen it before. I think
> Netscape messenger sets such a header. Something like X-Status. The
> flags for the header that I am aware of are "R" "O" and "N". Have you
> ever noticed how even if mutt doesn't list the folder as new in the
> folder view it still reports the messages properly once the folder is
> opened?
>
> | d> All-in-all though it's not such a bad system (for mutt). It
> | d> probably solves a lot of headaches with locks and other
> | d> processes trying to write to the mbox as mutt reads to
> | d> determine if something is new or not.
> |
> | What is "it" here? Futzing around scanning the mailbox or doing a
> | stat()? I hope you mean the latter.
> |
>
> Checking the timestamp. (I guess that's what stat() does, I haven't
> had a need to use stat() in any progs yet)
>
> | Incidentally, it appears from the stat(2) man page that a solution
> | to this problem might be unmounting, mounting with the option
> | "noatime", and then remounting without that option. It also appears
> | that 'touch' can change the access time of the file with the -a flag.
> | But I think I'm coming in on the end of this thread and that might
>
> I just joined the thread when the subject changed. I did know that
> touch will set the last (modfied/accessed) time to now, and if the
> file DNE it will create it.
>
> | have already been suggested. Also, if you know that your mailbox has
> | new mail, you can
>
> If I know it has new mail, then I already know. The goal is to
> have the MUA tell me instead. ;-)
>
> -D
You have the source code.
Fix this non-problem yourself ... since what you want to do
causes it :)
Cliff
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: