On 28-Feb-00 Phil Staub wrote:
> I would like to open a dialogue with anyone who is using mutt in
> conjunction with procmail and mh-style mailboxes. I've got some
> configuration questions.
I've only been using Mutt for a few days, and still have a lot to learn
about it, but yes, I'm using MH s
On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 09:27:11PM -0600, Conrad Sabatier wrote:
>
> On 28-Feb-00 Phil Staub wrote:
> > I would like to open a dialogue with anyone who is using mutt in
> > conjunction with procmail and mh-style mailboxes. I've got some
> > configuration questions.
>
> I've only been using Mutt
On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 09:57:05PM -0800, Phil Staub wrote:
>
> My major questions relate to getting mutt to properly detect the fact
> that mail has been newly deposited into mh folders that I have
> designated in my .muttrc as mailboxes. I've been getting new mail
> reported in folders that are
On 2000-03-01 07:15:28 -0600, Conrad Sabatier wrote:
> Yes, I've noticed that mutt behaves in a rather unreliable
> fashion when it comes to this, too.
The mh code is far from perfect. It should be fine for converting
legacy mh-style folders to something else, but I wouldn't use it in
productio
I wouldn't call my reasons "grave", but I do have a certain amount of preference for
MH folders. However, given the benefits of mutt over raw MH, it wouldn't exactly be a
show stopper if I couldn't use MH for incoming mail.
Thanks for your comments.
Phil
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 02:48:48PM +0
On 2000-03-01 09:49:23 -0800, Phil Staub wrote:
> I wouldn't call my reasons "grave", but I do have a certain
> amount of preference for MH folders.
Let me put my question like this: Is it a preference for MH-style
folders, or is it a preference for the one-file-per-message folder
model? In the
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 07:06:42PM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2000-03-01 09:49:23 -0800, Phil Staub wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't call my reasons "grave", but I do have a certain
> > amount of preference for MH folders.
>
> Let me put my question like this: Is it a preference for MH-style
> fo
On 01-Mar-00 Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2000-03-01 07:15:28 -0600, Conrad Sabatier wrote:
>
>> Yes, I've noticed that mutt behaves in a rather unreliable
>> fashion when it comes to this, too.
>
> The mh code is far from perfect. It should be fine for converting
> legacy mh-style folders to s
2000-03-01-20:08:10 Conrad Sabatier:
> I'm going to have to look into this "maildir" format, I think. :-)
>
> By the way, is there a simple way to convert my existing folders
> to this format?
Within mutt, if you go
:set mbox_type="Maildir"
(or put that in your .muttrc), mutt will creat
Previously:
>> By the way, is there a simple way to convert my existing folders
>> to this format?
Bennett provided a lot of good code to move files around, but I wonder
if it wouldn't just be easier to use nmh's "packf" command to batch
convert each of your MH style directories into single mbox
2000-03-01-22:09:44 Doug Wellington:
> Bennett provided a lot of good code to move files around, but I wonder
> if it wouldn't just be easier to use nmh's "packf" command to batch
> convert each of your MH style directories into single mbox style files
> and then deal with them that way...
If pac
Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 01 Mar 2000:
> So if you open an MH folder, tag all the messages with
>
> T~A
>
> then save them all to a new folder with
>
> ;snew-folder
>
> (that's a semicolon, it is the "tag prefix") that will convert the
> folder. However, since
On 2000-03-01 19:08:10 -0600, Conrad Sabatier wrote:
> By the way, is there a simple way to convert my existing folders
> to this format?
Just set mbox_type=maildir in mutt, go into an old folder, tag all
messages, and apply-save them to a new folder. With the "-e"
option, you can even do this
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 08:18:29AM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2000-03-01 19:08:10 -0600, Conrad Sabatier wrote:
>
> > By the way, is there a simple way to convert my existing folders
> > to this format?
>
> Just set mbox_type=maildir in mutt, go into an old folder, tag all
> messages, an
Conrad Sabatier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 02 Mar 2000:
> Just one more question: if I do do this, will I still be able to use
> the foldername/. syntax in my .procmailrc? For example:
Like it was just recently detailed, latest version of procmail supports
Maildir natively, so your rules
2000-03-02-23:26:11 Mikko Hänninen:
> I'd say maildir is worth it (no locking is a *big* win), [...]
Hear, hear!
> [...] and you can always use a program such as maildir2mbox if you
> ever have the need to convert to folder contents to a format that
> is read by pretty much every mail tool there
2000-03-03-18:32:55 Bennett Todd:
> For completeness, here's maildir2mbox, using the formail(1) utility
> that comes with procmail (to make sure every message has a good
> "From " header prepended):
>
> find maildir-name -type f|xargs -l formail >mbox-name
BRAAK. Should test my commands be
Just wanted to say "Thank you very much" for all the great responses in
this thread. Not only is Mutt a great mail app, but its users are the
greatest, too!
I've changed my MH boxes over to Maildir format, and I must say, Mutt is
certainly working much better now. And luckily, my version of pro
I'll add my thanks, too. The support available here has been most welcome.
Phil
On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 12:00:39AM -0600, Conrad Sabatier wrote:
> Just wanted to say "Thank you very much" for all the great responses in
> this thread. Not only is Mutt a great mail app, but its users are the
> gr
2000-03-01-13:46:36 Phil Staub:
> While I have some legacy MH folders that I would rather not
> re-format, I don't have enough knowledge of maildir to have known
> that one-file-per-message is possible with it. Looks like some
> further study is indicated.
Lemme try and give you a running start.
I wrote:
>Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Note to the procmail-list folks, the mutt list grew this thread that
>>spawned the question, how to deliver to Maildirs safely from an old,
>>musty, non-maildir-supporting procmail. Various suggestions were
>>bashed back and forth, and after I r
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 03:34:48PM -0500, Bennett Todd wrote:
>
> Here's a pretty safe maildir writer. Djb has some more rules for
> further paranoia; but the real world is not likely to bite you if
> you deliver messages like this. Written in Bourne Shell, but of
> course it codes into very lean
2000-03-02-12:53:32 Phil Staub:
> 2000-03-01-20:34:48 Bennett Todd:
> > f=`date +%s`.$$.`hostname`
> > cd $maildir
> > cat >tmp/$f
> > mv tmp/$f new/
>
> Assuming you were going to use this written as is (i.e., in
> Bourne shell) how would this be incorporated into a procmail
> rec
Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 02 Mar 2000:
> If for some reason I couldn't install a recent procmail, well, I
> would probably rather use a tight, tiny maildir writer written in
> C. I'm pretty sure there's one linked off the www.qmail.org, my
> link has gone stale,
There's a pr
[delurk]
err. I just saw a complex answer that made my head spin. Mine's a bit
easier. I'm assuming you've got procmail already setup (or can figure
it out).
#
### Wherever you normal re-direct non-spool mail.
MAILDIR=Mail
XXX=`date
At 16:19 -0700 02 Mar 2000, Benjamin Korvemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [delurk]
> err. I just saw a complex answer that made my head spin. Mine's a bit
> easier. I'm assuming you've got procmail already setup (or can figure
> it out).
>
>
Ok. Next time i'm just going to keep my mouth shut. At leat until
I've had a few cups of coffee.
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 11:41:51PM -0600, Aaron Schrab wrote:
> At 16:19 -0700 02 Mar 2000, Benjamin Korvemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [delurk]
> > err. I just saw a complex answer that made
OK, somebody has to say this:
Philip's latest revision of the procmailrc code in question is as follows:
| :0
| * conditions
| {
| :0 r
| foldername/tmp/$XXX
|
| :0 air
| |mv foldername/tmp/$XXX foldername/new/$XXX
| }
Shouldn't t
Note to the procmail-list folks, the mutt list grew this thread that
spawned the question, how to deliver to Maildirs safely from an old,
musty, non-maildir-supporting procmail. Various suggestions were
bashed back and forth, and after I read the thread it looked to me
like we were closing in on s
Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Note to the procmail-list folks, the mutt list grew this thread that
>spawned the question, how to deliver to Maildirs safely from an old,
>musty, non-maildir-supporting procmail. Various suggestions were
>bashed back and forth, and after I read the thread
Philip Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sat, 04 Mar 2000:
> However, since you're trusting for $XXX to be unique, you might as well
> go all the way and save two processes (a shell and the cat) by saving
> the message directly:
>
> :0
> * conditions
> {
> :0
>
31 matches
Mail list logo
