Re: maildir subdirs not accessible anymore

2024-09-10 Thread Julien Cubizolles
James Thomas  writes:


> Could you check that there's a symlink to 'ups-tex' within 'Free'? It
> seems that that is needed, because from the docs:
>
>   For each of your ‘nnmaildir’ servers (it's very unlikely that you'd
>   need more than one), you need to create a directory and populate it
>   with maildirs or symlinks to maildirs (and nothing else; do not choose
>   a directory already used for other purposes).

I think I was wrong in assuming that Gnus was previously able to descend
subdirs in my setup. I checked the remote IMAP server and noticed that
it didn't use subdirs until recently, and I had put these groups in a
subtopic in Gnus, which I took the habit of mistaking for a correct
representation of the structure of the IMAP server. It's easier for now
to configure the IMAP to use a flat structure and use topics in Gnus.

Thanks for your help and sorry for this false representation of what
was finally not a problem…
-- 
Julien Cubizolles




Re: maildir subdirs not accessible anymore

2024-09-10 Thread James Thomas
Julien Cubizolles wrote:

> James Thomas writes:
>
>> Could you check that there's a symlink to 'ups-tex' within 'Free'? It
>> seems that that is needed, because from the docs:
>>
>>   For each of your ‘nnmaildir’ servers (it's very unlikely that you'd
>>   need more than one), you need to create a directory and populate it
>>   with maildirs or symlinks to maildirs (and nothing else; do not choose
>>   a directory already used for other purposes).
>
> I think I was wrong in assuming that Gnus was previously able to descend
> subdirs in my setup. I checked the remote IMAP server and noticed that
> it didn't use subdirs until recently, and I had put these groups in a
> subtopic in Gnus, which I took the habit of mistaking for a correct
> representation of the structure of the IMAP server. It's easier for now
> to configure the IMAP to use a flat structure and use topics in Gnus.
>
> Thanks for your help and sorry for this false representation of what
> was finally not a problem…

Cool. But I'll take a rain check on this for the next time something's
really my fault. :-)

--