Re: Opening mailboxes from the command line
- From: Jack <ostroffjh sbcglobal net>
- To: balsa-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Opening mailboxes from the command line
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:55:18 -0400
On 2011.10.20 11:44, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
On 19 Oct, 2011, at 15:15 , Jack Ostroff wrote:
> It works for me, with balsa 2.4.8 under Gentoo Linux.
> balsa -o file:///home/jack/mail/balsa
> opens my mailbox named balsa (mbox) but it also opens Inbox, and
Inbox is selected. Hoewver, if I add "-i" at the end of the command,
balsa is selected instead.
Thanks for your reply! This sounds like the opposite of what should
happen, right?
Well - to be picky, -o says open mailbox, not select mailbox, although
it would make sense to select a mailbox if you explicitly say to open
it.
Anyway, I did some more tests to explore this issue.
1) balsa 2.4.10 under Ubuntu 11.10 and under MacOS X (installed via
MacPorts)
If I specify a mailbox that exists but has not previously been added
to Balsa, I get the error message I cited before. If the mailbox has
been added previously, there is no error message, but the mailbox is
not selected either. The selected mailbox is always the one that was
selected the last time I ran balsa.
I'm not sure I would expect balsa to try to open a mailbox it doesn't
know exists. In fact, although the file/directory does exist, until
you tell balsa to create the mailbox, from its perspective, it doesn't
exist yet. However, given that it appears you need to specify the
mailbox by URI instead of just its name, it should certainly know where
to look for it - although I'm not sure it could easily always determine
which type of mailbox it is.
2) balsa 2.4.1 under Ubuntu 10.04
Opening a mailbox on the command line works just as expected. If the
mailbox was not already added to balsa, it is added first.
This looks like some bug was introduced between 2.4.1 and 2.4.10.
Unless one of the developers can think of what commit might have caused
this change in behavior, it might take a bisection approach to identify
it.
By the way, I do agree the old behavior makes more sense and gives less
surprise.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]