Re: Filters with multiple copies of pine running

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Matt Ackeret wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Ross wrote:
>> To followup, I doubt the "recent" or "new" tags, or any 
>> others, get set as the filter is designed to move the message, 
>> not update status. Anotherwords save a copy to the destination 
>> folder, then expunge the message from the INBOX. It
>
> Filters do NOT expunge.  They simply mark the message as 
> deleted, and visually hide the message.  (This is one of the 
> few times I think that programs hiding info from the user is 
> reasonable.  I like seeing messages that I have specifically 
> deleted, but if a filter moves/deletes it, it should be hidden 
> from me.)

Really, only "hide the message", marked deleted?  That I did not 
know!  That could make for a bad situation in a multiuser 
environment like you are attempting. It leaves the message 
available; though it is marked as deleted, & only seen by the 
user that did not filter/mark it for deletion. As long as the 
deleted flag were observed by the second user & used as criteria, 
things might work as you want. But the system is not realtime - 
it is a delayed update.

> You can see this by starting up another IMAP mail program after 
> the filter has gone through on one machine but before you 
> manually expunge -- you'll see the messages deleted in the 
> mailbox.

Manually expunge?  I don't manually expunge. So how does a 
hidden-deleted message get expunged on my single user system 
after the filter finishes?  The filter must be doing it at the 
end of its process, or something does.

Otherwise, that is why the move-only-if-not-deleted works as you 
said previous. Something don't seem right, very curious.

--
RossARR
[email protected]
mrossarr.nixsyspaus.org/
nixsyspaus.org=208.64.38.250
---end-of-message---
_______________________________________________
Pine-info mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/pine-info