On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 09:33:58AM -0400, Peter Davis wrote:
> I'm using MH folders with Mutt 1.4.2.3i, but there are some
> inconsistencies:
>
> 1) Mutt seems to assume the "unseen" sequence is always called
> "unseen," though this can be set in the .mh_p
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 09:45:26AM +0300, Axel Palm wrote:
> Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:33:58 -0400
> kirjutas Peter Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> |
> | 3) Mutt doesn't seem to recognize some folders as mail folders at
> | all. In MH, a mail folder is just a folder under the top mail folder
> | wh
Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:33:58 -0400
kirjutas Peter Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
|
| 3) Mutt doesn't seem to recognize some folders as mail folders at
| all. In MH, a mail folder is just a folder under the top mail folder
| which contains files whose names are message numbers: 1, 2, 739, etc.
| Somet
I'm using MH folders with Mutt 1.4.2.3i, but there are some
inconsistencies:
1) Mutt seems to assume the "unseen" sequence is always called
"unseen," though this can be set in the .mh_profile. If I set it to
"unseen", mutt seems to know which messages in a fold
I am trying Mutt as a replacement for my current MUA. So far, I'm
very happy with it but have run into one small challenge.
My old MUA uses MH format for the folders and I have lots of folders.
I have put .xmhcache into each folder so I can read them with Mutt. I
use procmail to sort my mail
hello,
One of the machine I use manage mails with Mutt 1.2i (2000-05-09)
and use the mh format for folders.
Many messages have the begining of their body troncated, the headers
seem ok. I don't see why this happen but I think that it's when mutt
writes its flags and/or content header fields (l
Brett Coon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 20 Jun 2000:
> Hmm, to the extent that MH format is like Maildir, my experience
> is contrary to your claim that saving changes is faster in a
> one-message-per-file format. I found that closing mutt took
> several times longer with MH tha
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:33:31 EDT, Bennett Todd wrote:
>Back to our muttons, the above performance discussion focused on
>opening the folder. Once it's open, mutt has built an in-memory data
>structure describing the messages, and either their offsets in the
>mbox file, or the filenames where the
2000-06-21-01:17:34 Ronny Haryanto:
> I'm still wondering why it's slower though (in general), maybe
> because it fopen() more times than mbox? The mailbox is on ext2fs
> if that makes any difference.
Ext2 is a nice quick FS, with many great features. One of my
favourites.
For any size mailbox,
On 19-Jun-2000, clemensF wrote:
> > I've converted my mailboxes to maildir once, it turned out to be
> > slower than mbox, so I converted back to mbox now. Dunno about MH, but
> > I'm guessing it's about the same speed as maildir since it resembles
> > maildir.
> are your files on a network?
Nope
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:07:00 +0200, clemensF wrote:
>well, i',m on the verge of converting to [nx]mh. but i stick to the
>rules, i.e. i will answer each message to me in due time, so i can't
>keep n*1000 messages, a few dozen are the utmost horror to me.
>
>so, why in the world would one want t
On 2000.06.20, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"clemensF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> so, why in the world would one want to leave mh for mutt?
Are you asking why in the world would one want to leave:
next
next
comp
...
send
next
next
next
next
repl
send
for:
m
...
y
r
...
y
?
Multipl
Brett Coon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 20 Jun 2000:
> So, in summary, MH format is slw in mutt. NFS makes it far
> slower, no doubt due to NFS write behavior,
You could try also Maildir. It's NFS safe (no locking needed!), and
it might (ought to!) give you a better performance
Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
>
> * clemensF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 07:49:56PM +0200)
> >> Ronny Haryanto:
>
> >> I've converted my mailboxes to maildir once, it turned out to be
> >> slower than mbox, so I converted back to mbox now. Dunno about MH, but
> >> I'm guessing it's
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:59:23 +0200, Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
>>> I've converted my mailboxes to maildir once, it turned out to be
>>> slower than mbox, so I converted back to mbox now. Dunno about MH, but
>>> I'm guessing it's about the same speed as maildir since it resembles
>>> maildir.
>
Gerhard den Hollander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 19 Jun 2000:
> Speaking of which,
> how can I get my hands on the latest dev ?
There's just a new snapshot out on the ftp site (1.3.4).
If you want to live with the CVS, then read the info in
doc/devel-notes.txt.
Regards,
Mikko
--
// Mik
David --
...and then David Champion said...
% On 2000.06.19, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
% "David T-G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
% >
% > Any way to put the X-Label: contents into $index_format?
%
% My index_format has: "%?y?[%y] ?". From the docs:
[informative stuff snipped]
[lousy formatt
* Mikko H?nninen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 06:42:41PM +0300)
> David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 19 Jun 2000:
> > Any way to put the X-Label: contents into $index_format?
>
> I think so. I'm not sure though, it's awhile since it was discussed and
> I'm not running the l
* clemensF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 07:49:56PM +0200)
>> Ronny Haryanto:
>> I've converted my mailboxes to maildir once, it turned out to be
>> slower than mbox, so I converted back to mbox now. Dunno about MH, but
>> I'm guessing it's about the same speed as maildir since it res
Brett --
...and then Brett Coon said...
%
% So, it sounds like I could define my own set of fields and flags
% for X-Label, create some mutt macros to allow me to manipulate
...
% or "reply in N days", it should be a simple task to create a perl
% script to scan the X-Label headers for o
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:01:42 +0300, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mikko_H=E4nninen?= wrote:
>Brett Coon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 19 Jun 2000:
>> 2. The feature I *really* want in a mailtool is the ability to
>> (conveniently) put various attributes on messages, such as
>> "answer within 1 wee
On 2000.06.19, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"David Champion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2000.06.19, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "David T-G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Any way to put the X-Label: contents into $index_format?
>
> My index_format has: "%?y?[%y] ?". From the doc
On 2000.06.19, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"David T-G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Any way to put the X-Label: contents into $index_format?
My index_format has: "%?y?[%y] ?". From the docs:
The ``X-Label:'' header field can be used to further identify mailing
lists or list subject ma
> Ronny Haryanto:
> I've converted my mailboxes to maildir once, it turned out to be
> slower than mbox, so I converted back to mbox now. Dunno about MH, but
> I'm guessing it's about the same speed as maildir since it resembles
> maildir.
are your files on a network?
clemens
David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 19 Jun 2000:
> Any way to put the X-Label: contents into $index_format?
I think so. I'm not sure though, it's awhile since it was discussed and
I'm not running the latest dev so I can't test it out or check the docs.
Mikko
--
// Mikko Hänninen, aka.
Hi, folks --
...and then Mikko Hänninen said...
% Brett Coon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 19 Jun 2000:
% > 2. The feature I *really* want in a mailtool is the ability to
% > (conveniently) put various attributes on messages, such as
% > "answer within 1 week", "delete after 2 weeks"
Brett Coon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 19 Jun 2000:
> 2. The feature I *really* want in a mailtool is the ability to
> (conveniently) put various attributes on messages, such as
> "answer within 1 week", "delete after 2 weeks", etc, and
> have the mailtool act accordingly on mes
On 19-Jun-2000, clemensF wrote:
> > Brett Coon:
> > 1. Folder changes are really slow. My MH folders (directories)
> > have thousands of messages, which undoubtedly is at least
> > part of the problem. Would it be faster if I stored messages
> > in m
> Brett Coon:
> 1. Folder changes are really slow. My MH folders (directories)
> have thousands of messages, which undoubtedly is at least
> part of the problem. Would it be faster if I stored messages
> in mbox format? Is there anything else I can do to speed
&g
I'm currently an MH/exmh user, and I'm considering the switch to
mutt.I have tried it out briefly, and browsed the
documentation, so hopefully the following questions aren't too
obvious.
1. Folder changes are really slow. My MH folders (directories)
ha
partially due to the fact that there is no
defined locking mechanism for this file.
To make a long story short: Don't use MH folders for incoming
messages, and consider mutt's mh folder support "legacy format
support".
On 1999-06-19 18:55:04 +0200, Staffan Hamala wrote:
>
Hi,
I was just wondering.. Is there a patch available
to fix newmessage status flags for MH folders?
I'm using MH folders at work, and when looking at the
folder-list, only empty folders and the last visited folder does
not have an 'N' flag.
It makes no difference if I have a n
32 matches
Mail list logo
