On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:40:09PM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: > On 2020-09-22 13:30, Chris Green wrote: > > > > Does mutt still use the (IMHO silly) maildir hierarchy where mail > > > 'folders' are simply represented by another '.' and name in the > > > maildir directory name? > > > > > > Is there some way I can get to use real directories to represent my > > > hierarchy of mail? > > > Originally maildirs had no subfolders; the '.' names were invented by Sam > Varshavcik, I think a long time ago.[1] What you want also exists; it may be > more recent. The IMAP server Dovecot, at least, can be configured to name > maildir subfolders either way. > Yes, exactly, it used to work the 'right' way! :-)
> I think Mutt can read or create a maildir at any pathname you supply, > including the pathname of either kind of subfolder. What Kevin said about > the new function <descend-directory> sounds like a handy shortcut. > > > I just run mb2md on my existing mail folders, I ended up with a single > > directory (~/Maildir) containing 2354 files mostly with ridiculously > > long names! This just isn't a sensible way to organise my mail. > > > Do you mean you have 2354 mbox files, and now 2354 maildir subfolders? Maybe Yes. > you can write a shell script that renames all those maildir subfolders to > the pathnames you want. Or a script that runs mb2md 2354 times, with an > input and output pathname each time, if it can be used that way. Or use a > different conversion tool. > I think I might try that second idea, I can run mb2md (as you say) 2354 times and get the layout I want. Then I can try mutt on it and see if it's practical. -- Chris Green
