Re: Can mutt be persuaded to use a sensible maildir hierarchy?
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 05:46:53PM +0100, 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? I'm not sure why you think Mutt is doing this... I have my maildir folders set up in exactly the way you say you want and they work fine. But Mutt, by and large, isn't what created that mailbox structure--it was procmail. Presumably it's also true for you that whatever is delivering your mail is creating the directory structure, and mutt is just consuming it. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Can mutt be persuaded to use a sensible maildir hierarchy?
On 23Sep2020 14:58, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: >On 2020-09-23 04:07, Chris Green wrote: > >>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. > > >Does mb2md convert message attributes? (Message has been read, message >has been replied to, etc.) Easy to test though. And easy to patch mb2md if lacking. >In mbox files, I believe Mutt stores that stuff in the common but >non-standard headers Status:, X-Status:, and X-Label:. Maildir instead >encodes much of that in message pathnames. Basic maildir has no way to >encode labels/keywords, but Dovecot has added its own mechanism for >that. I don't know how Mutt stores labels in maildir. The label %Y displays comes from X-Label. I use it extensively. One can also remember that you can convert mailboxes using mutt, in which case you're assures that the results will be mutt compatible :-) Here's a line from the guts of my mboxify script, which I use to bulk convert Maildir to mbox (I keep my archive folders as mbox, more compact): mutt -n -F /dev/null -f "$mailbox" -e "set sort=mailbox-order; set confirmappend=no; set delete=yes; push '.$mailboxtmp'" where $mailbox is the source mail folder and $mailboxtmp is a scratch mbox folder (intially just an empty file of course), which gets renamed if the mutt succeeds. Cheers, Cameron Simpson
Re: Can mutt be persuaded to use a sensible maildir hierarchy?
On 2020-09-23 04:07, Chris Green wrote: 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. Does mb2md convert message attributes? (Message has been read, message has been replied to, etc.) In mbox files, I believe Mutt stores that stuff in the common but non-standard headers Status:, X-Status:, and X-Label:. Maildir instead encodes much of that in message pathnames. Basic maildir has no way to encode labels/keywords, but Dovecot has added its own mechanism for that. I don't know how Mutt stores labels in maildir.
Re: Message threading: reply message and In-Reply-To/References
On 2020-09-23 03:22, Francesco Ariis wrote: Il 23 settembre 2020 alle 13:52 Kevin Shell ha scritto: In mail/news discussion, some reply messages have no In-Reply-To/References headers, what cause reply messages don't have In-Reply-To/References headers? A possible explanation: the sender clicked «New message» and copy/pasted the Subject instead of clicking «Reply». Another possibility is that the sender's mail reader just doesn't do that. Those two headers are optional, not required; some mail readers just don't create them in replies.
Re: Can mutt be persuaded to use a sensible maildir hierarchy?
On 23Sep2020 09:11, Chris Green wrote: >> I don't browse from within mutt (but see Kevin's reply) but I do have >> a >> directory hierarchy. Admittedly it is shallow and does not have Maildirs >> inside Maildirs, but my own folders are like this: >> >> ~/mail/foldername # top level "current" folders >> ~/mail/OLD//foldername # archived folders >> ~/mail/O/foldername # this year's archived folders >> >> I've just got (d)elete bound to move messages into >> "O/current-folder-name", and "O" is just a symlink to >> "OLD/the-current-year". >> >> So no Maildirs inside Maildirs, but several subdirectories. >> >I don't think I want Maildirs inside Maildirs, mbox can't do that so I >don't expect it. Then you should be fine. Make whatever structure you'd like. Cheers, Cameron Simpson
Re: Message threading: reply message and In-Reply-To/References
* Francesco Ariis on Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 10:30:09 +0200: Il 23 settembre 2020 alle 15:55 Kevin Shell ha scritto: On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote: By default mutt checks In-Reply-To/References to group threads; *also*, messages with the same Subject are grouped together in «pseudo threads» (reference [1]). Does this answer your questions? I know, but I ask what those messages linked to, root/first message? Checking my mutt, pseudo thread are linked to the «highest» message with the same title If you don't like the result of a pseudo thread, you can link-threads (bound to & by default) manually. -- LAST SHIP HOME --->> https://lastshiphome.de Official Selection DOK.fest München 2018 German Ocean Film AwardCineMare Kiel 2019 Best Documentary Feature Wales International Film Festival 2020
Re: Message threading: reply message and In-Reply-To/References
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:30:09AM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote: > Il 23 settembre 2020 alle 15:55 Kevin Shell ha scritto: > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote: > > > By default mutt checks In-Reply-To/References to group threads; *also*, > > > messages with the same Subject are grouped together in «pseudo threads» > > > (reference [1]). > > > Does this answer your questions? > > > > I know, but I ask what those messages linked to, root/first message? > > Checking my mutt, pseudo thread are linked to the «highest» message > with the same title > —F What's "«highest»" message? My mutt draw those messages with three special characters "├*>", but I don't know where should mutt linked those messages to, some linked to root/first message, some are elsewhere. -- kevin
Re: Message threading: reply message and In-Reply-To/References
Il 23 settembre 2020 alle 15:55 Kevin Shell ha scritto: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote: > > By default mutt checks In-Reply-To/References to group threads; *also*, > > messages with the same Subject are grouped together in «pseudo threads» > > (reference [1]). > > Does this answer your questions? > > I know, but I ask what those messages linked to, root/first message? Checking my mutt, pseudo thread are linked to the «highest» message with the same title —F
Re: Can mutt be persuaded to use a sensible maildir hierarchy?
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 08:20:11AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: > On 22Sep2020 17:46, 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? > > Are you talking about browsing a Maildir hierarchy from mutt, or just > the physical structure on disc? > The actual structure on disk, as I explained I often move stuff around and/or rename things, or check on space usage directly from the command line and the maildir++ format makes this *very* difficult. > I don't browse from within mutt (but see Kevin's reply) but I do have a > directory hierarchy. Admittedly it is shallow and does not have Maildirs > inside Maildirs, but my own folders are like this: > > ~/mail/foldername # top level "current" folders > ~/mail/OLD//foldername # archived folders > ~/mail/O/foldername # this year's archived folders > > I've just got (d)elete bound to move messages into > "O/current-folder-name", and "O" is just a symlink to > "OLD/the-current-year". > > So no Maildirs inside Maildirs, but several subdirectories. > I don't think I want Maildirs inside Maildirs, mbox can't do that so I don't expect it. > Oh, don't forget: don't name any of your folders "tmp" or "cur" or > "new", those names are special for Maildir. > Yes, easily forgotten, especially tmp. :-) -- Chris Green
Re: Can mutt be persuaded to use a sensible maildir hierarchy?
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 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
Re: Can mutt be persuaded to use a sensible maildir hierarchy?
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:44:22AM +1000, raf wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 06:30:52PM +0100, Chris Green wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 05:46:53PM +0100, 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? I manually rearrange my mail sometimes and to deal > > > with very long directory names isn't really practical. For example I > > > might decide to move mail as follows:- > > > > > > ~/Mail/folder/travel/zelmaFrance > > > > > > to > > > > > > ~/Mail/folder/travel/france/zelma > > > > > > With real directories such a move isn't too difficult but with the > > > default maildir naming it becomes painful. > > > > > > Some software I believe does work the way I want with maildir but the > > > dotted hierarchy seems to be becoming the standard. Is there no way > > > round this? I'd really like to move to maildir but I really can't see > > > it being practical for me as it is. > > > > > 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. > > > > -- > > Chris Green > > I might be talking nonsense, but that maildir hierarchy > probably is the correct thing, as defined by whoever > came up with it, and is what is needed for all(?) mail > software that deals with maildir to work. But if you > want to manipulate the hierarchy separately from mail > software, and still have all mail software work > correctly, you might be able to implement (or convince > someone to implement) a userspace fuse file system that > provides an alternative view of the real maildir file > system, that can be mounted alongside the real maildir > directory. Then, whatever mail software you want to use > can work with the real maildir hierarchy, and you can > manipulate it in the way you want outside of mail > software. I have no idea how much effort would be > involved in such a fuse file system, though. > The only things dealing with the maildirs are my own mail filter written in Python and mutt, nothing else. Way back when maildir first appeared and I used qmail the way I want things to work was the way it *did* work. It's the maildir++ thing that's broken it. > An alternative, if the only problem is renaming > folders, is to write a shell script or something that > renames maildir folders. That would be a lot less > effort. > > But I really don't know what I'm talking about. I use > mbox. > > Perhaps you can rename/move folders in a mail client > and then you don't need to look at the guts underneath. > That would be the easiest way. I know that GUI IMAP > clients can do that. Can mutt do that? I found this: > > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/44508/mutt-rename-imap-folder > No IMAP, no POP3. :-) -- Chris Green
Re: Message threading: reply message and In-Reply-To/References
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote: > Hello Kevin, > > Il 23 settembre 2020 alle 13:52 Kevin Shell ha scritto: > > In mail/news discussion, > > some reply messages have no In-Reply-To/References headers, > > what cause reply messages don't have In-Reply-To/References headers? > > A possible explanation: the sender clicked «New message» and copy/pasted > the Subject instead of clicking «Reply». > This is only one possible scenario, expecially newbies. > > What message these reply messages > > linked to with regard to mutt message threading? > > By default mutt checks In-Reply-To/References to group threads; *also*, > messages with the same Subject are grouped together in «pseudo threads» > (reference [1]). > Does this answer your questions? > —F I know, but I ask what those messages linked to, root/first message? -- kevin
Re: Message threading: reply message and In-Reply-To/References
Hello Kevin, Il 23 settembre 2020 alle 13:52 Kevin Shell ha scritto: > In mail/news discussion, > some reply messages have no In-Reply-To/References headers, > what cause reply messages don't have In-Reply-To/References headers? A possible explanation: the sender clicked «New message» and copy/pasted the Subject instead of clicking «Reply». > What message these reply messages > linked to with regard to mutt message threading? By default mutt checks In-Reply-To/References to group threads; *also*, messages with the same Subject are grouped together in «pseudo threads» (reference [1]). Does this answer your questions? —F [1] http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/#strict-threads
