delete email Maildir

hi,

this is my .muttrc:

-----------------------------------

set mbox_type=Maildir
set folder=~/Maildir
set spoolfile=~/Maildir
set record="+.Sent"
set mask="!^\\.[^.]"
set postponed="+.Drafts"
set copy=yes
set move=no
set maildir_trash=yes
mailboxes `\\

echo -n "+ "; \\

for file in ~/Maildir/.*; do \\

box=$(basename "$file"); \\

if [ ! "$box" = '.' -a ! "$box" = '..' -a ! "$box" = '.archive' \\

-a ! "$box" = '.courierimaphieracl' -a ! "$box" = '.courierimapkeywords' ]; then \\

echo -n "\"+$box\" "; \\

Re: Using send-hook to remove a header

 On Friday, August 26, 2005 at 12:53:40 PM +0200, Alain Bench wrote:

> use the ~l pattern for "message is addressed to a known mailing list"?
> But note the <F1> lies: It matches *only* subscribed lists. And even
> patch-1.4-me.lists.1 doesn't help. Is that a bug in doc or in code?

    From my own usage pattern of ~l, I believe it to be a bug in code
that should be corrected to match documentation and to match all known
lists. The attached patch ab.tilde_l_matches_known_lists.1 does just
that. It is an independant complement of me.lists.1.

Bye!	Alain.
--

-- 
When you want to reply to a mailing list, please avoid doing so from a
digest. This often builds incorrect references and breaks threads.

ab.tilde_l_matches_known_lists.1
Pattern ~l matches known lists as documented.

diff -prud mutt-1.4/pattern.c mutt-1.4.mod/pattern.c
--- mutt-1.4/pattern.c	Sat May 18 07:39:18 2002
+++ mutt-1.4.mod/pattern.c	Sat Aug 27 21:08:39 2005
@@ -1034,7 +1034,7 @@ mutt_pattern_exec (struct pattern_t *pat
       return (pat->not ^ match_adrlist (pat->rx, flags & M_MATCH_FULL_ADDRESS,
 					pat->alladdr, 2, h->env->to, h->env->cc));
     case M_LIST:
-      return (pat->not ^ mutt_is_list_recipient (pat->alladdr, h->env->to, h->env->cc));
+      return (pat->not ^ mutt_is_list_cc (pat->alladdr, h->env->to, h->env->cc));
     case M_PERSONAL_RECIP:

Re: delete email Maildir

* Natxo Asenjo <natxete <at> asenjo.nl> [2005-09-01 09:43 +0200]:
> set maildir_trash=yes
[...]
> all in all it works as it should except for the fact that if I mark the
> messages for deletion (d) they are not deleted. 
> 
> Asking mutt to purge them with $ does not help either. Any tips?

       6.3.103  maildir_trash

       Type: boolean

       Default: no

       If set, messages marked as deleted will be saved with the maildir (T)rashed
       flag instead of unlinked.  NOTE: this only applies to maildir-style mailboxes.
       Setting it will have no effect on other mailbox types.

Nicolas

Re: delete email Maildir

>> set maildir_trash=yes

ok, that did it. Thanks.

Re: delete email Maildir

On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 09:43:41AM +0200, Natxo Asenjo wrote:

> Another problem is copying messages from one folder to another. If I

ok, solved this using 's' and <tab>, now I'm happy again.

--

-- 
Groeten,
J.I.Asenjo

hierarchical folder in mutt?

I like to group a bunch of open source mailing lists under a single
(sub-)folder so that the top-level mboxes are not too crowded.

Is this possible?

I searched web and seem to get conflicting information.  And in any case
did get any specific instructions.

I tried to list a directory as a "mailbox".  The directory shows up
fine.  However, it is not quite "mail folder" in the sense that
mutt does not indicate whether any new mails exists under that folder,
nor does mutt know the files under that folder are mailboxes.

Thanks in advance.

Jun

Re: hierarchical folder in mutt?

* Jun Sun <jsun <at> junsun.net> [02-09-2005 08:07]:

> I like to group a bunch of open source mailing lists under a single
> (sub-)folder so that the top-level mboxes are not too crowded.
> 
> Is this possible?
> 
> I searched web and seem to get conflicting information.  And in any case
> did get any specific instructions.
> 
> I tried to list a directory as a "mailbox".  The directory shows up
> fine.  However, it is not quite "mail folder" in the sense that
> mutt does not indicate whether any new mails exists under that folder,
> nor does mutt know the files under that folder are mailboxes.

True.  You should define every mailbox explicitly.  You can do this
with a trick like:

(muttrc)
mailboxes `~/bin/listmailboxes.sh`

listmailboxes.sh will contain some nifty ls function which lists all
mailboxes you want to see in your mailbox browser.

HTH,

--

-- 
René Clerc                      - (rene <at> clerc.nl) - PGP: 0x9ACE0AC7

God is science's putty.

Re: hierarchical folder in mutt?

On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 10:04:35AM +0200, René Clerc wrote:
> * Jun Sun <jsun <at> junsun.net> [02-09-2005 08:07]:
> 
> > I like to group a bunch of open source mailing lists under a single
> > (sub-)folder so that the top-level mboxes are not too crowded.
> > 
> > Is this possible?
> > 
> > I searched web and seem to get conflicting information.  And in any case
> > did get any specific instructions.
> > 
> > I tried to list a directory as a "mailbox".  The directory shows up
> > fine.  However, it is not quite "mail folder" in the sense that
> > mutt does not indicate whether any new mails exists under that folder,
> > nor does mutt know the files under that folder are mailboxes.
> 
> True.  You should define every mailbox explicitly.  You can do this
> with a trick like:
> 
> (muttrc)
> mailboxes `~/bin/listmailboxes.sh`
> 
> listmailboxes.sh will contain some nifty ls function which lists all
> mailboxes you want to see in your mailbox browser.
>

Hmm, in this case all the mailist lists will show up as top-level mailboxes,
right?   The only difference is the mbox file is stored hierarchically.

If that is case, that is not true hierarchical mailbox support.

Re: mbox-hook: broken or useless?

Hello Haakon,

> OK, it's been a while, but I finally decided to write a patch
> that should make mutt work the way I like.  To make it simpler, I
> decided to drop the move-hook idea, and simply alter the behavior of
> save-hook instead.  Now, in addition to its old semantics, save-hook
> will also be called on mailbox close.  I.e., if there is a matching
> save-hook rule, the default mbox destination is overridden by the
> save-hook destination.

> The patch is included below.  If you, or anyone else, can spot
> any obvious problems with this, please let me know -- I really
> don't want to loose any mail over this. 

yes it is. Thanks for providing the patch. I am unable to try it at the
moment because I haven't my infrastructure ready. However in 30 days I
will have it ready again. So stay tuned. Thanks for the effort! If this
thing works as expected, I will get back to the old behaviour I had with
pine before switching to mutt.

	Thomas

Re: mbox-hook: broken or useless?

Hello,

> Bad idea -- not because it's bad functionality, but simply because
> it will surprise users with existing installations.

this should be easy to fix.

	Thomas