[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mutt-dev
Subject:    Re: (bugs 903 and 905) bad IMAP interaction with threading?
From:       Daniel Eisenbud <eisenbud () cs ! swarthmore ! edu>
Date:       2001-12-24 10:50:46
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 11:43:34AM +0100, Michael Rauch <mrauch@fs.tum.de> wrote:
> Interestingly enough, the bug hasn't appeared in the last weeks any more 
> for me. I normally have my mutt open all the day, the only difference was 
> that before I had pressed <previous-undeleted> and <next-undeleted> from 
> time to time (which causes mutt to scan the mailboxes for new mail IIRC) 
> and afterwards mutt was mainly just sitting around and waiting (but new 
> mail arriving in the mailbox with about the same frequency)
> (I haven't yet applied your patch which always setis $init = 1.)
> Don't know if this is relevant or helps anything, but i thought I'd mention 
> it. 

Hmm.  What is the value of your $timeout variable?  The only difference
that I can imagine is that mutt resorted the mailbox more often before,
and the chances of triggering the bug were more related to the number of
times mutt resorted the mailbox than the number of new messages that
arrived.

Do you think it's likely that you deleted messages and resynchronized at
some point before each of the crashes, or no?

Just to be sure, are you sure that you are using the same mutt binary
now as you were before, and that your .muttrc is the same?  Have you
applied any other patches?

-Daniel

-- 
Daniel E. Eisenbud
eisenbud@cs.swarthmore.edu

"We should go forth on the shortest walk perchance, in the spirit of
undying adventure, never to return,--prepared to send back our embalmed
hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms."
					--Henry David Thoreau, "Walking"
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]