Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 08:12:13AM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: I think a better approach is to figure out what needs to be changed/ fixed/added to RFC 4155 so that it covers the variants that arisen, and to create a superseding RFC that updates it. This won't fix all the problems that have aris

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On 22/05/25, Rich Kulawiec (r...@gsp.org) wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 05:26:25PM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: > > Nope, sorry. RFC 4155 has a problem. Its default format, the only one it > > defines, defines the From_ line rigidly, forbids ">From " escaping, and does > > not use a length. It

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 05:26:25PM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: > Nope, sorry. RFC 4155 has a problem. Its default format, the only one it > defines, defines the From_ line rigidly, forbids ">From " escaping, and does > not use a length. It says messages should be found by recognizing the whole >

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

Quoting Rory Campbell-Lange from 15 May (a Thursday in 2025) at 0640 hours... > > I didn't know that. I see on the man page mutt can save as mbox, MMDF, MH or > Maildir using the -m flag. I couldn't see any docs about saving in the > different mbox formats, which I understand from > https://docs.a

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 02:29:13PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: Though then it's even more odd that mbox(5) which ships with mutt _does_ (now) mention MBOXCL2, but also still leaves in all the text about From_ escaping / quoting. Wouldn't it be nice if there was only one version of mbox, and it

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 02:43:50PM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 11:26:00PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: > > On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 01:31:27AM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: > > Right, totally understand all of this, but where I'm confused is that if > > the claim is that M

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 04:04:35PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: We referred to them as "mboxes" back in the day; the term was so common that some programs used "mbox" as a default filename. (Can't recall offhand, but maybe the early BSD version of the "mail" command, AKA "ucbmail"?) I think t

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 02:25:44PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: > https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000386.shtml > mentions MBOXCL and MBOXCL2 dating back to SYSVr4. So, if that's the > case, that may have been the widely understood "mbox" used well before > Mutt was first writt

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On 16/05/25, Kurt Hackenberg (k...@panix.com) wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 04:30:53PM +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: > > > I assume the "Content-Length" (and possibly also "Lines"?) was, as Kurt > > suggests, a way of efficiently reading emails out of a larger mbox file. > > No. It was inv

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 04:30:53PM +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: I assume the "Content-Length" (and possibly also "Lines"?) was, as Kurt suggests, a way of efficiently reading emails out of a larger mbox file. No. It was invented so it wouldn't have to do ">From " escaping, which damages

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 08:05:25PM +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: I'm on mutt 2.2.13-1. Is the following what you expected? --- /tmp/test.maildir/cur/1747420397.M988463P24699Q1.rain.cave:2,S 2025-05-16 19:33:17.0 +0100 +++ /tmp/test.mbox 2025-05-16 20:00:52.063481577 +0100 @@

Re: ReRe: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 02:46:07PM -0400, Mark E. Mallett wrote: One case in point: the bit about only quoting "From_" lines if preceded by a blank line. That's one heuristic (if I dare to use the word) that was pretty randomly followed in the past. It mostly is now, but has not always been. T

Re: ReRe: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 02:09:16PM -0500, Tim Chase wrote: And if program Y "properly" escapes them when storing (indenting again): >From me with no prefix >>From me with one prefix >>>From me with two prefixes From me with three prefixes program X will only un-mung the first one (corr

Re: ReRe: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 02:46:07PM -0400, Mark E. Mallett wrote: > One case in point: the bit about only quoting "From_" lines > if preceded by a blank line. Oh this is kind of interesting. I have a set of patches that I apply to mutt, like for when new versions come out. One of them is a fix to

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On 16/05/25, Kurt Hackenberg (k...@panix.com) wrote: > All right, I just made a maildir for this test. Tar file is attached. Save > the tar file, extract the maildir from it (it's named test.maildir), do > > mutt -f test.maildir > > have Mutt save the message to a new mbox file, cat that mbox

Re: ReRe: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On 2025-05-16 08:37, Mutt list wrote: > On 16.05.25 01:31, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: > > If you think this is a mess, you're right. People have tried to fix > > it, but it can't really be fixed. The only good solution is to not > > use mbox, and store mail in other ways instead. > > I've yet to see an

Re: ReRe: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On 2025-05-16 14:46, Mark E. Mallett wrote: > PS: just to babble on, here's part of the body of a message that I use > in one of the test scripts for my mail delivery agent. > [snip] > I've left-padded all the lines here with spaces so they won't get > quoted. I hope. If you're looking for more tr

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On 16/05/25, Mark E. Mallett (m...@schmem.com) wrote: > Just to wade into the bikeshedding.. ... > PS: just to babble on, here's part of the body of a message that I use > in one of the test scripts for my mail delivery agent. The test files > are used in testing different formats (mbox and maildir

Re: ReRe: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 08:37:01AM +, dvalin--- via Mutt-users wrote: I've yet to see anything to fix, having used mbox format exclusively since the 1980s, with mutt since the late 90s. It just effortlessly works with complete reliability - never a hiccup. If you use only Mutt, only with m

Re: ReRe: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 08:37:01AM +, dvalin--- via Mutt-users wrote: > On 16.05.25 01:31, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: > > > If you think this is a mess, you're right. People have tried to fix > > it, but it can't really be fixed. The only good solution is to not use > > mbox, and store mail in oth

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 11:26:00PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 01:31:27AM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: Mboxcl2 does it the other way. Instead of using a marker, it uses a length, stored in the non-standard header Content-Length:. Software reads the message header section

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 10:47:15AM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: > > > If you think this is a mess, you're right. People have tried to > > > fix it, but it can't really be fixed. The only good solution is > > > to not use mbox, and store mail in other ways instead. > > I've yet to see anything to fi

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 08:37:01AM +, dvalin--- via Mutt-users wrote: > On 16.05.25 01:31, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: > > > If you think this is a mess, you're right. People have tried to fix > > it, but it can't really be fixed. The only good solution is to not use > > mbox, and store mail in oth

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On 16/05/25, Kurt Hackenberg (k...@panix.com) wrote: > > I was just confused because the earlier post had seemed > > to imply that this was not done / needed for MBOXCL2. > > It's not, because that variant has Content-Length:. > > Let's say you want to put multiple variable-length chunks of text

ReRe: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On 16.05.25 01:31, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: > If you think this is a mess, you're right. People have tried to fix > it, but it can't really be fixed. The only good solution is to not use > mbox, and store mail in other ways instead. I've yet to see anything to fix, having used mbox format exclusi

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 01:31:27AM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: > Mboxcl2 does it the other way. Instead of using a marker, it uses a length, > stored in the non-standard header Content-Length:. Software reads the > message header section and in there finds the length of the message body, > and th

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 09:18:53PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: > It's interesting that in replies, Mutt uses >From escaping, though in > the actual raw mbox file, it's not present. No, you're confusing two different uses of '>' at the beginning of a line. ... Yes, I understand how quote mark

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 08:57:56PM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 02:25:44PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: > > > It's interesting that in replies, Mutt uses >From escaping, though in > > the actual raw mbox file, it's not present. > > No, you're confusing two different uses

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 02:25:44PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: It's interesting that in replies, Mutt uses >From escaping, though in the actual raw mbox file, it's not present. No, you're confusing two different uses of '>' at the beginning of a line. A reply can quote the original message, an

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 06:40:34AM +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: I didn't know that. I see on the man page mutt can save as mbox, MMDF, MH or Maildir using the -m flag. I couldn't see any docs about saving in the different mbox formats, which I understand from https://docs.aspose.com/email/n

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 06:40:34AM +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: > On 14/05/25, Kurt Hackenberg (k...@panix.com) wrote: > > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 02:01:11PM +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: > > > I believe that mutt uses mboxcl2 format for writing new mailboxes. I'

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

d. > A long time ago¹, I wrote a guide (sorry German only) how to use mutt to > convert mailboxes into different formats: > https://web.archive.org/web/20140228233037/http://blog.256bit.org/archives/345-Mutt-als-Mailbox-Konvertierer.html > > ¹) It's so long ago, that the

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

ted. > > (I see there is a macro snippet suggested at https://foolab.org/node/1737 > which the author used to automate this process.) A long time ago¹, I wrote a guide (sorry German only) how to use mutt to convert mailboxes into different formats: https://web.archive.org/web/2014

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On 15/05/25, Dan Ritter (d...@randomstring.org) wrote: > Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: > > I'm going to start with the postmark line (I can't really read C but > > is_from in from.c makes interesting reading.) I'll then work to decode > > the different mbox types, starting with MBOXCL/MBOXCL2, as nee

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On 14/05/25, Kurt Hackenberg (k...@panix.com) wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 02:01:11PM +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: > > > I believe that mutt uses mboxcl2 format for writing new mailboxes. I'd > > be grateful to know if that is corrrect. > > I think that&#

Re: mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 02:01:11PM +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: I believe that mutt uses mboxcl2 format for writing new mailboxes. I'd be grateful to know if that is corrrect. I think that's right, with a small addition: since version 1.9.5 (April 2018), Mutt has also wri

mutt mbox format for new mailboxes

Hello; I'm a new subscriber here, but very long-time mutt user. I believe that mutt uses mboxcl2 format for writing new mailboxes. I'd be grateful to know if that is corrrect. It would be helpful also to know how long that has been the case since I've got some 20 year old mutt

Slow sidebar with large number of mailboxes

Hi folks, I am connecting to an imap server and have a large number of mailboxes (>300). I am trying to find an efficient workflow to use the sidebar and navigate through these mailboxes. Some are getting a lot of emails very frequently, others very rarely. At first I configured all the mailbo

Slow sidebar with large number of mailboxes

Hi folks, I am connecting to an imap server and have a large number of mailboxes (>300). I am trying to find an efficient workflow to use the sidebar and navigate through these mailboxes. Some are getting a lot of emails very frequently, others very rarely. At first I configured all the mailbo

Re: Mailboxes aliasing

+ mutt-users@- все Thank you much. When using 'set folder' command, all functions work as well as if the letters were in the home directory.

Re: Mailboxes aliasing

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:49:55AM +0700, Дмитрий Архипов wrote: [snip] I need to work with folders of my IMAP-server (move messages between them) and it is very boring to write full names like imap://a...@bbb.com/fff. Is it possible to make aliases for mailboxes? The labels, introduced in

Mailboxes aliasing

Hi! I need to work with folders of my IMAP-server (move messages between them) and it is very boring to write full names like imap://a...@bbb.com/fff. Is it possible to make aliases for mailboxes? The labels, introduced in mailbox command do not work. I mean if I press, for example Copy command

Re: large IMAP mailboxes (OutLook)

El día martes, noviembre 12, 2019 a las 09:37:26p. m. +0100, Anders Damsgaard escribió: > * Matthias Apitz [2019-11-12 21:22:00 +0100]: > > >There is no caching of the mails in any database and update the cached > >information off-line. > > If you haven't already, try setting $header_cache and

Re: large IMAP mailboxes (OutLook)

* Matthias Apitz [11-12-19 15:24]: > > Hello, > > I'm using mutt as well to read/answer mails in my company mail Exchange > server using IMAP/SMTP. This works mostly fine and as expected. The only > problem is my large INBOX there, some 2000 mails. On any start or > connect to the INBOX, mutt fe

Re: large IMAP mailboxes (OutLook)

* Matthias Apitz [2019-11-12 21:22:00 +0100]: There is no caching of the mails in any database and update the cached information off-line. If you haven't already, try setting $header_cache and $message_cachedir. According to the mutt manual, you are likely to achieve the best performance if t

large IMAP mailboxes (OutLook)

Hello, I'm using mutt as well to read/answer mails in my company mail Exchange server using IMAP/SMTP. This works mostly fine and as expected. The only problem is my large INBOX there, some 2000 mails. On any start or connect to the INBOX, mutt fetches all headers to present the list. There is n

Re: mailboxes - example

On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 07:15:49AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 01:07:28PM +, Dan Ciprus (dciprus) wrote: > > Obviously all strings defined there are considered mailboxes even though > > there is no maildir structure nor mailbox file. > > Ye

Re: mailboxes - example

On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 02:48:16PM +, Dan Ciprus (dciprus) wrote: Hm, at least there is some creative workaround :-) Thanks Kevin ! You're welcome. By the way it looks like I blew the example. The documentation is at and it

Re: mailboxes - example

Hm, at least there is some creative workaround :-) Thanks Kevin ! On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 07:15:49AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 01:07:28PM +, Dan Ciprus (dciprus) wrote: Obviously all strings defined there are considered mailboxes even though there is no

Re: mailboxes - example

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 01:07:28PM +, Dan Ciprus (dciprus) wrote: Obviously all strings defined there are considered mailboxes even though there is no maildir structure nor mailbox file. Yes, that's exactly the problem. The sidebar is a list of mailboxes; there is no concept of div

Re: mailboxes - example

Nobody ? :-) On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 01:07:28PM +, Dan Ciprus (dciprus) wrote: Good morning, I did a bit of googling recently but I have not found a good example of mailboxes configurable which would make my sidebar look pretty :-). What I am looking for is something simmilar to this

mailboxes - example

Good morning, I did a bit of googling recently but I have not found a good example of mailboxes configurable which would make my sidebar look pretty :-). What I am looking for is something simmilar to this: Customers --- customer1 0 customer2 0 customer3

Re: IMAP mailboxes in the sidebar

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 09:15:00AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 05:44:34AM -0700, Felix Finch wrote: > > It does show those two in teh sidebar. But "mailboxes" is only for > > incoming mail: > > > > This command specifies fol

Re: IMAP mailboxes in the sidebar

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 05:44:34AM -0700, Felix Finch wrote: > It does show those two in teh sidebar. But "mailboxes" is only for > incoming mail: > > This command specifies folders which can receive mail and which > will be checked for new messages periodic

Re: IMAP mailboxes in the sidebar

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 10:26:24PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > Forgive me for asking what may be a stupid question, but have you > *listed* all the mailboxes in question with a 'mailboxes' command in > your muttrc? > > If so, is there any chance you have something

Re: IMAP mailboxes in the sidebar

On 09/16, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 07:22:55PM -0500, Arturo wrote: > > Well I had a similar issue. IIRC, INBOX was always there regardless for > > me, > > but I had to use the full path to get anything else to work. There was a > > bug (since fixed) in NeoMutt where it

Re: IMAP mailboxes in the sidebar

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 11:48:18AM -0700, Felix Finch wrote: > Ubuntu 18.04, Mutt 1.9.4. > > set sidebar_format="%B%?F? [%F]?%* %?N?%N/?%S" > set sidebar_new_mail_only=no > set sidebar_visible=yes > > The sidebar shows only INBOX. All other mailbox

Re: IMAP mailboxes in the sidebar

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 07:22:55PM -0500, Arturo wrote: > Well I had a similar issue. IIRC, INBOX was always there regardless for me, > but I had to use the full path to get anything else to work. There was a > bug (since fixed) in NeoMutt where it wasnt' expanding = or + to > the full path. Sou

Re: IMAP mailboxes in the sidebar

> > > > Ubuntu 18.04, Mutt 1.9.4. > > > > > > > > > > set sidebar_format="%B%?F? [%F]?%* %?N?%N/?%S" > > > > > set sidebar_new_mail_only=no > > > > > set sidebar_visible=yes > > > > > > >

Re: IMAP mailboxes in the sidebar

> set sidebar_format="%B%?F? [%F]?%* %?N?%N/?%S" > > > > set sidebar_new_mail_only=no > > > > set sidebar_visible=yes > > > > > > > > The sidebar shows only INBOX. All other mailboxes are absent. The > > > > same mutt sidebar

Re: IMAP mailboxes in the sidebar

ebar_new_mail_only=no > > > set sidebar_visible=yes > > > > > > The sidebar shows only INBOX. All other mailboxes are absent. The same > > > mutt sidebar is fine for local maildirs with a different muttrc. > > > > > > I tried setting > >

Re: IMAP mailboxes in the sidebar

gt; > > The sidebar shows only INBOX. All other mailboxes are absent. The same > > mutt sidebar is fine for local maildirs with a different muttrc. > > > > I tried setting > > > > sidebar_whitelist =INBOX "=All Mail" > > > > and that

Re: IMAP mailboxes in the sidebar

On 09/16, Felix Finch wrote: > Ubuntu 18.04, Mutt 1.9.4. > > set sidebar_format="%B%?F? [%F]?%* %?N?%N/?%S" > set sidebar_new_mail_only=no > set sidebar_visible=yes > > The sidebar shows only INBOX. All other mailboxes are absent. The same mutt >

IMAP mailboxes in the sidebar

Ubuntu 18.04, Mutt 1.9.4. set sidebar_format="%B%?F? [%F]?%* %?N?%N/?%S" set sidebar_new_mail_only=no set sidebar_visible=yes The sidebar shows only INBOX. All other mailboxes are absent. The same mutt sidebar is fine for local maildirs with a different muttrc. I tri

Re: find matched message in all mailboxes and put them into a separate mailbox

o > > multiple > > mailboxes? I would like to search for matched messages in all mailboxes and > > then put them into a separate mailbox. For example, I have 10 mailboxes and > > now I want to search in these 10 mailboxes for messages that have me in the > > "To: " fiel

Re: find matched message in all mailboxes and put them into a separate mailbox

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 13:19:22 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > the OP has mbox which notmuch doesn't support OP said that it's maildir: On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 05:29:38PM +0800, Yubin Ruan wrote: > Oh, I am using Maildir. So maybe some standalone script will help? --Ben

Re: find matched message in all mailboxes and put them into a separate mailbox

* Ben Boeckel [01-18-18 11:40]: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 17:29:38 +0800, Yubin Ruan wrote: > > I know one can hit / or l (i.e., limit) and then apply a search pattern to > > search for messages in the current mailbox. But can we apply this to > > multiple > > mailbo

Re: find matched message in all mailboxes and put them into a separate mailbox

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 17:29:38 +0800, Yubin Ruan wrote: > I know one can hit / or l (i.e., limit) and then apply a search pattern to > search for messages in the current mailbox. But can we apply this to multiple > mailboxes? I would like to search for matched messages in all mail

Re: find matched message in all mailboxes and put them into a separate mailbox

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 05:29:38PM +0800, Yubin Ruan wrote: > Hi, > > I know one can hit / or l (i.e., limit) and then apply a search pattern to > search for messages in the current mailbox. But can we apply this to multiple > mailboxes? I would like to search for matched

Re: find matched message in all mailboxes and put them into a separate mailbox

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 05:29:38PM +0800, Yubin Ruan wrote: Hi, I know one can hit / or l (i.e., limit) and then apply a search pattern to search for messages in the current mailbox. But can we apply this to multiple mailboxes? I would like to search for matched messages in all mailboxes and

Re: find matched message in all mailboxes and put them into a separate mailbox

* Yubin Ruan [01-18-18 04:31]: > > I know one can hit / or l (i.e., limit) and then apply a search pattern to > search for messages in the current mailbox. But can we apply this to multiple > mailboxes? I would like to search for matched messages in all mailboxes and > then

Re: find matched message in all mailboxes and put them into a separate mailbox

x. But can we apply this to > > multiple > > mailboxes? I would like to search for matched messages in all mailboxes and > > then put them into a separate mailbox. For example, I have 10 mailboxes and > > now I want to search in these 10 mailboxes for messages that have

Re: find matched message in all mailboxes and put them into a separate mailbox

x. But can we apply this to > > multiple > > mailboxes? I would like to search for matched messages in all mailboxes and > > then put them into a separate mailbox. For example, I have 10 mailboxes and > > now I want to search in these 10 mailboxes for messages that have me in the

Re: find matched message in all mailboxes and put them into a separate mailbox

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 05:29:38PM +0800, Yubin Ruan wrote: > Hi, > > I know one can hit / or l (i.e., limit) and then apply a search pattern to > search for messages in the current mailbox. But can we apply this to multiple > mailboxes? I would like to search for matched

find matched message in all mailboxes and put them into a separate mailbox

Hi, I know one can hit / or l (i.e., limit) and then apply a search pattern to search for messages in the current mailbox. But can we apply this to multiple mailboxes? I would like to search for matched messages in all mailboxes and then put them into a separate mailbox. For example, I have 10

Re: Subscription file handling for shared mailboxes

* Thomas Leuxner 2018.01.04 09:29: > subscriptions: > :shared/rou...@domain.tld/INBOX > > It appears Mutt struggles with the @ sign in the subscription file and cuts > off the TLD in this light, trying to login as a new user: > > Jan 4 09:20:41 edi dovecot: auth: Error: passwd-file(router@dom

Subscription file handling for shared mailboxes

Hi, I recently had to introduce shared mailboxes on IMAP accounts. While other MUAs seem to be fine with the subscriptions file entry, Mutt (1.9.2) seems to handle special characters differently: subscriptions: :shared/rou...@domain.tld/INBOX It appears Mutt struggles with the @ sign in the

Sort mailboxes vs. file browser

Hi all, It's bugged me forever that when I set sort_browser=unsorted, so that my mailboxes are shown to me in the order I list them, Mutt also shows me file listings in the file browser unsorted. I think this is insane. Mailboxes list != file list; the two have different properties and s

Re: Using wildcards for the mailboxes command

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:11:47AM +0200, Thomas Glanzmann wrote: > Hello, > I would like to use wildcards in mailboxes command, Is there a non > obvious way to obtain that? > > mailboxes /home/sithglan/Maildir/.lists.*.mailing.dhl.de > > (infra) [~/work/briefe] ls -ald /

Using wildcards for the mailboxes command

Hello, I would like to use wildcards in mailboxes command, Is there a non obvious way to obtain that? mailboxes /home/sithglan/Maildir/.lists.*.mailing.dhl.de (infra) [~/work/briefe] ls -ald /home/sithglan/Maildir/.lists.*.mailing.dhl.de drwx-- 5 sithglan sithglan 4096 Nov 30 2015 /home

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

ex, press 'c' to initiate a mailbox change, then either: > > > > > > a) type in the full name of the desired mailbox, > > > b) type a few characters, then hit for autocompletion, > > > c) if b) meets multiple alternatives, hit again, for a list. > &

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 09:05:17PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 26.03.16 15:10, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > I can see what you both are referring to. There are big differences > > between 'c' and 'y' for my work style. First, 'y' shows the files

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

On 27.03.16 21:05, Erik Christiansen wrote: > That's not what happens here, I hit 'c' and mutt immediately offers the > mailbox with new mail which appears highest in the (one or more) > "mailboxes" lines in my .muttrc. Jon, if mutt isn't detecting new mail

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

On 26.03.16 15:10, Jon LaBadie wrote: > I can see what you both are referring to. There are big differences > between 'c' and 'y' for my work style. First, 'y' shows the files > defined by the "mailboxes" parameter, the ones I'm looking f

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

> a) type in the full name of the desired mailbox, > > b) type a few characters, then hit for autocompletion, > > c) if b) meets multiple alternatives, hit again, for a list. > > d) hit , to cycle through visited mailboxes, till you're back. > > e) hit - to go bac

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

ocompletion, > >>> c) if b) meets multiple alternatives, hit again, for a list. > >>> d) hit , to cycle through visited mailboxes, till you're back. > >> > >> e) hit - to go back to the previously visited mailbox > > > > OK, but that is d)

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

ing tab, but >> after hitting enter take me to the previous mailbox. > > Is that paragraph setting out to conflate 'c' with some other use > of , in an unrelated context? No, - or for that matter cycle through history and show the corresponding mailbox in the 'menu&#

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

viously > visited mailbox, only '-', will not expand by hitting tab, but > after hitting enter take me to the previous mailbox. Is that paragraph setting out to conflate 'c' with some other use of , in an unrelated context? When it's working, do repeated '-' step backwards through the previously visited mailboxes, as 'c' does? (The manual is unclear, and I can't test it.) Erik

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

ex, press 'c' to initiate a mailbox change, then either: >>> >>> a) type in the full name of the desired mailbox, >>> b) type a few characters, then hit for autocompletion, >>> c) if b) meets multiple alternatives, hit again, for a list. >>> d) hit

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

> a) type in the full name of the desired mailbox, > > b) type a few characters, then hit for autocompletion, > > c) if b) meets multiple alternatives, hit again, for a list. > > d) hit , to cycle through visited mailboxes, till you're back. > > e) hit - to go back

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

few characters, then hit for autocompletion, > c) if b) meets multiple alternatives, hit again, for a list. > d) hit , to cycle through visited mailboxes, till you're back. e) hit - to go back to the previously visited mailbox -- theatre - books - texts - movies Black Trash Production

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

ession, in the index, press 'c' to initiate a mailbox change, then either: a) type in the full name of the desired mailbox, b) type a few characters, then hit for autocompletion, c) if b) meets multiple alternatives, hit again, for a list. d) hit , to cycle through visited mailboxes, till

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 04:16:27PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:12:34PM +, Christian Ebert wrote: > > > > May not be exactly what you want, but are you aware of the > > next-unread-mailbox command? > > Hah, does the same thing as the macro I posted that I have been

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:12:34PM +, Christian Ebert wrote: > * Jon LaBadie on Friday, March 25, 2016 at 14:36:17 -0400 ... > > > > Recently I've been trying to adapt to using the "y" > > mutt command to list my mailboxes and select the one > > I wan

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:12:34PM +, Christian Ebert wrote: > > May not be exactly what you want, but are you aware of the > next-unread-mailbox command? Hah, does the same thing as the macro I posted that I have been using forever always something new to learn. w

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

* Jon LaBadie on Friday, March 25, 2016 at 14:36:17 -0400 > Like many others, procmail splits my incoming mail > into many mailboxes. My way of reading them is a > set of shell aliases doing "mutt -f ..." All begin > with "m" (e.g. mm for this list) and &qu

Re: omit empty mailboxes from list

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 02:36:17PM -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote: > So my mail reading consists of starting and quitting mutt many times > as I switch among the mailboxes. > > Recently I've been trying to adapt to using the "y" mutt command to > list my mailboxes and sele

omit empty mailboxes from list

Like many others, procmail splits my incoming mail into many mailboxes. My way of reading them is a set of shell aliases doing "mutt -f ..." All begin with "m" (e.g. mm for this list) and "m" by itself lists the non-empty mailboxes. So my mail reading consists of s

eliminate empty mailboxes from 'y' index

I have a large set of aliases to start mutt on my collection of mail boxes. So I typically enter and exit mutt many times. I've been looking at the 'y' command to see if I should change my behavior. One problem for me is the index displays all my mail boxes including empty ones. Is there a way

Re: How to refresh mailboxes view (y)

I guess, I did not try the option (u), to simply the unsubscribe the folder, and after (y) (y) I could see the new fresh list of accurate folders. On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:37:02PM +0100, Tomas Nordin wrote: > > features. Recently I was started using key (y) to view some mailboxes. > &g

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >