At Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:41:24 -0500,
Derek Martin wrote:
>
> [1 <text/plain; iso-8859-1 (7bit)>]
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 02:03:44PM -0600, lee wrote:
> >
> > No, I was looking for a better way to organize mails. Using more
> > folders to store mail in them isn't a good way for me to do that. You
> > agree that mutt gets "clunky" when you try to do that.
>
> No, I do not agree to any such thing. It gets clunky when you try to
> manage arbitrary folders that you're creating and removing on the fly,
That is exactly the sort of flexibility needed. Why, for example,
doesn't mutt recognize a folder I'm creating when I'm saving a mail
into a new folder? It'll ask me nicely if I want to create the folder,
but that's all. That's the way to go when you want to lose track of
your folders and mail.
I am (was --- I'm trying out another MUA now) using mutt to administer
my mail. I wasn't using an editor to administer my mail, which you
need to do when using mutt because you have to keep adjusting the
config.
It's only a small detail, but it makes mutt awkward.
> Have you ever considered that the arrangement of categories you're
> selecting is just too complicated? You can either choose your
> categories carefully, perhaps somewhat broadly, so that you never (or
> at least very rarely) need to add or remove any folders...
The arrangement isn't complicated at all. Using the
thread-marking-and-linking workaround, I created eight plain
categories and assigned some mails to them. The categories are going
to stay a while.
I could have used folders instead, but mutt wouldn't recognize the
folders (unless I edited the config); it wouldn't distinguish the
categories from folders and it wouldn't keep the categories visible at
hand in the inbox.
> One wonders what kind of e-mail you're receiving that you need to have
> so many categories...
Who says that I have many categories?
> You get a bill that doesn't fit into one of the folders you already
> have...
>
> What do you do?
put it somewhere where it probably gets lost and I probably won't
remember after a while
However, it wouldn't happen. When bills cannot be processed, the
company doesn't get money.
> > Removing folders is not supported, renaming them isn't either.
>
> Mutt can only do either of those operations safely if all of the
> follwing are true:
>
> 1) No mail is being delivered to the folder in question.
It depends on how mail is being delivered.
> 2) The new name chosen is on the same physical device and partition
> as the current one.
Huh?
> 3) #2 also applies for deletes, because deleting a directory is not
> an atomic operation, so you need to rename the directory first.
Huh??
> Mutt can never reliably determine #1. Mutt often can not determine
> the others
I'm telling you all the time that it doesn't need to determine
anything. It's the user deleting a maildir --- he can use a shell, a
file manager or whatever. But he can't use his MUA because the MUA
doesn't provide a way to delete a maildir. That's silly.
However the user deletes a maildir, he can do that safely or
not. You're basically arguing that a shell (or rm) or file managers
shouldn't allow anyone to delete or move maildirs because they can't
do that safely.
> But if you add the feature to Mutt, people will use it, even if you
> tell them it's not safe, and some people will lose mail, and
> complain. So, if you're a Mutt maintainer, you've got to be crazy
> to add a feature like this.
If you add a feature to delete files to a file manager, people will
use it, even if you tell them it's not safe, and some people will lose
files, and complain. So, if you're a file manager maintainer, you've
got to be crazy to add a feature like this.
> > Well, are you now saying that mutt is supposed to be used with only
> > one mail folder?
>
> Eh? I think there may be some language barrier here... I'm not sure
> how "put your folders [<- note the plural "folders"] in your config"
> got interpreted as "use only one folder..." They're not even close.
What you are saying is that I shouldn't use folders --- because
maildirs are static and never to be changed and must not have
hierarchies --- but that I should use folders to simulate categories
which can more or less frequently change and which don't persist
indefinitely.
Perhaps there's some misunderstanding here? I keep saying that I don't
want to use folders to simulate categories because folders are not
suited for that for a number of reasons. You keep saying that folders
are not suited to simulate categories for a number different reasons
than the ones I have but that I should use them to simulate
categories.
> > Ok, that makes some sense. Still it could show me what is what after I
> > tell it which folders are a maildir.
>
> It does. If you specify them with mailboxes, they're listed
> separately in one of the file browser screens from any other files in
> your directory tree.
Unless there's a screen I haven't seen yet, that screen shows only the
folders I have told mutt are maildirs.
> > Since you need to tell mutt which folders are maildirs, why can't you
> > tag directories in the directory list to tell mutt that those are
> > maildirs and have mutt write that into its config? Why doesn't mutt
> > optionally ask you when creating a new maildir if you want to add the
> > new directory to your mailboxes?
>
> Because Mutt does not itself update your configuration. Ever.
It updates the configuration when you create an alias.
> The only thing resembling updating your config that it does is allow
> you to append e-mail aliases to a specified aliases file. However,
> it's generally expected that this file is not your config file, and
> that you must edit your config file manually to have Mutt source
> that file. Mutt expects that you will manually maintain your
> configuration.
Well, I didn't even know that you could use another file than the
config to save aliases. However, mutt could use a separate file to
store information about maildirs and then wouldn't need to update the
config when you change that information.
> > > How could managing your mail this way possibly be efficient or
> > > productive? You're creating folders on the fly and deleting them
> > > when they're empty.
> >
> > I'm not saying it's efficient or productive --- I'm saying all the
> > time it's not while you kept suggesting that I do it that way. Maybe
> > that was a misunderstanding?
>
> What I'm suggesting is that you stop trying to associate arbitrary
> categories with each e-mail, and create well-defined categories, and
> stick to them.
The categories I have created aren't arbitrary. They are what I find
useful. They don't apply to every mail; if they would, they would be
useless.
> If you can do that (and I'm positive that you can, if
> you just give it some thought), most of your problem vanishes. Then,
> if you read up in the manual about the interface issues that are
> leading you to describe Mutt as awkward, most of the rest of your
> problems also vanish.
We have already established that the interface doesn't allow/support
what I'm looking for. The workaround I got is something I would have
never thought of. The manual is mostly a reference --- I consult it
when I'm trying to find out how to do something. It doesn't work the
other way round as much.
> > Yeah, that's what I'm doing, and it always has been insufficient for
> > organizing mail. How could managing my mail like that possibly be
> > efficient or productive?
>
> It seems to work well for millions of Internet users...
What is this assumption based upon? It seems to me that most people
either don't care and/or have given up and live with the limits, but
many, if not most of them, would be glad if there was a better way of
organizing their mail than they currently have. Just think about how
many different MUAs there are.
> > I don't see what you mean. On the one hand you suggest that I use
> > folders to simulate categories; on the other hand you suggest that I
> > shouldn't do that because mutt and maildir aren't supposed to be used
> > like that.
>
> I'm not saying that at all, quite the opposite. Mail folders
> ARE categories. I'm saying you already have what you want.
> I'll try to summarize the issues you've specifically complained about.
> In the list below, substitute "category" for "folder" as you see fit:
>
> 1. Mutt does not make it easy for you to create new folders
a.) That isn't true, mutt makes it very easy to create new folders. It
only doesn't make it easy to handle them.
> 2. Mutt does not make it easy for you to delete folders
b.) It doesn't delete folders at all, that's part of making it difficult
to handle them.
> 3. Mutt does not make it easy for you to move mail between folders
c.) Not true, either: Mutt makes it pretty easy to move mail between
folders, but it doesn't make it easy to handle folders.
> 4. Mutt does not make it easy for you to change to a different folder
d.) Yeah, mutt doesn't make it easy to handle folders.
> 5. Mutt does not make it easy for you to see mails in multiple
> folders at the same time
e.) Not exactly: It doesn't make it possible to see folders (categories)
and, when requested, the mails in that category (folder) within a list
of messages (letting aside the workaround). Since it doesn't do that,
it also doesn't support moving messages into a category (folder ---
But it makes it easy to move messages into different folders without
making it easy to handle folders).
> Now, I'll try to address each one as succinctly as possible.
>
> 1. This is false,
yes, see a.)
> If you keep all of your categories (sorry, I meant folders) in
> $folder (and you've set that variable appropriately in your
> .muttrc),
Ok, but see e.).
> Note that officially, maildir does not support subfolders (mail
> folders inside other mail folders)... it may or may not work in
> Mutt, I haven't tried.
Mutt eventually gets confused when you select such a folder. But it's
not what I'm doing, though I somehow happen to have a folder or two
that are maildirs containing other maildirs an not messages. That is
something I need to clean up. If mutt could delete folders, I'd
probably have done that a long time ago ...
> 2. I already explained why this is not possible. But, if you're using
> Mutt and maildir the way they are expected to be used, this really
> should be a non-issue.
It means that folders cannot be used to simulate
categories. Categories are temporary, folders are not.
> 3. The answer for this is exactly the same as #1.
see c.) ...
> 4. The answer for this is exactly the same as #1,
see a.), c.), d.), e.)
> 5. Yeah, Mutt doesn't do this; but I don't know of any mail client
> that does.
Mutt could be the first one to do it. It would be a great feature, and
I'm sure a lot of people would love it.
> If you still insist that this can't work for you, then I ask you to
> consider that it does work very well for just about everyone who uses
> e-mail anywhere.
Well, I don't think it does. If it would, then why are there so many
users not entirely happy with their MUAs?
But it doesn't matter. I still think that there are better ways to
organize mail than there are now, and being able to create categories
(without abusing folders or other things) and assign mail to them
would be a possible improvement.
People use categories all the time, like the book keeper stores his
bills categorized by years, people put glasses into one cupboard and
cups into another and they organize their silverware in a drawer that
has categories for knifes, forks, spoons ... I will admit that these
categories are usually static like folders, but they fulfill their
purpose well enough because there is no need for them to be
flexible. But the purposes mail is used for aren't static, they change
all the time with what the user is currently interested in or
currently doing, and static categories (folders) don't suffice.
Why should MUAs keep forcing their users to take detours and find
workarounds to somehow get/simulate something as basic and useful as
categories? The traditional approach is using folders, but I'm saying
that can be improved.
> Ask yourself, why not you? Please bear in mind, I am actually
> trying to help you do what you need to do. I'm not trying to
> criticize your ideas about improving Mutt's interface... I think
> some of your ideas are fine -- they're just not how Mutt works
> today, and I'd venture a guess that it won't any time soon.
It's just as I said earlier: Folders are for final storage, and what's
moved out of the inbox into some folder is out of sight and
forgotten. Besides, mutt doesn't support handling folders very
well. It's awkward because it can't rename or move or remove folders
and you need to adjust the configuration every time you create one.
> If this doesn't help you, then I'm pretty sure I'm not capable of
> helping you, so I bow out at this point.
Well, you made me think I could create another directory in my folder
hierarchy and call that "categories" and create maildirs in that
directory to simulate the particular categories. I'd only have to
treat that sub-hierarchy differently in regard to "being out of
sight". I don't know any better MUA than mutt ... The one I'm
currently trying also wants you do specify all the folders you're
using, and I haven't figured out yet how I could save a mail in a
different folder ... :/
