Subject: Expunge does not filter (pine4.60) (fwd)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:50:53 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,
I have sent email to the discussion, but I haven't seen it in. So I try 
again.

I've made new test and the pine doesn't filter on expunge in every mailbox.

======

Hi all,

can anyone check this error I've found in pine 4.60?

If you create filter with some To: pattern on INBOX (internal /var/spool/mail/ 
mailbox) and with some status (I set "If message is important"), then if you 
save this filter and exit from settings, the filter is applied. But if you are 
in INBOX, you set Important some message with the correct To: address and press 
X (as expunge), filter doesn't apply. In pine 4.58 this worked fine.

Can anyone to check where is the problem and fix it? Please:))

Bye.

Robert Wolf.

======
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/pine/pine-info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Steve Hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:57:19 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 [email-masked] wrote:

> If you create filter with some To: pattern on INBOX (internal 
> /var/spool/mail/ mailbox) and with some status (I set "If message is 
> important"), then if you save this filter and exit from settings, the filter 
> is applied. But if you are in INBOX, you set Important some message with the 
> correct To: address and press X (as expunge), filter doesn't apply. In pine 
> 4.58 this worked fine.
>

It turns out that is intentional. It is a safety feature which is tricky 
to implement, and for your case, it does not do what you want. On the 
other hand, it ought to correctly filter it the next time you come into 
this folder, so the problem should be a small one.

What it does is it avoids refiltering a message it has already filtered if 
the user manually changes the flags on that message. In your case, you 
manually set the Important flag, so the filtering code leaves it alone for 
now. Another case, where the refiltering behavior is harmful, is the case 
where a filter sets the Deleted bit and then the user Undeletes the 
message. In that case, the user does not want the filter to re-set the 
deleted bit and then expunge the message. Pine could attempt to figure out 
which cases make sense to refilter and which don't. Instead, it errs on 
the side of caution by deferring the refiltering whenever the user 
manually sets a flag.

Steve Hubert <[email-masked]>
Univ. of Washington: Computing and Communications, Seattle