maildirs & sub-maildirs

[Gour]

Hello,

I'm just about to switch to mu4e - I did finish mbsync work and I'm
ready to index my database and start using mu4e.

Few days ago I did ask (no reply) about organizing my ~/Maildir when
dealing with multiple accounts and noticed the following note in the
docs (mu-index):

"NOTE: It is not recommended to mix maildirs and sub-maildirs within the
hierarchy in the same database; for example, it's better not to index
both with --maildir=~/MyMaildir and --maildir=~/MyMaildir/foo, as this
may lead to unexpected results when searching with the 'maildir:' search
parameter (see below)."


So, I wonder whether it apply if I plan to index with just:

mu index --maildir=~/Maildir

while my ~/Maildir looks like:

~/Maildir/account-1
~/maildir/account-2
...
~/Maildir/account-n

where each account-i has its subfolders under ~/Maildir/account-i?

Should I make every folder/subfolder in the above ~/Maildir hierarachy
into proper Maildir directory (having {cur,new,tmp}) ?


Sincerely,
Gour

[Ken Mankoff]

I came from pine/alpine where I used folders. It took a bit, but now everything just goes in "archive" and I move it annually so I have

.
├── INBOX (with cur,new,temp)
├── archive (with cur,new,temp)
├── archive_2014 (...)
└── archive_2013

And nothing else. It took a while to let go of folders, but the mu4e searching is so good I don't need it. And if you want more organization, you can use tags rather than folders. I understand others may need a bit more separation between work and personal, etc. But I'd consider fewer maildirs locally rather than more...

-k.

[Gour]

Ken Mankoff <man...@gmail.com> writes:

> I came from pine/alpine where I used folders. It took a bit, but now
> everything just goes in "archive" and I move it annually so I have

I *liked* pine, but never used alpine - already switched to other
mailers.

> .
> ├── INBOX (with cur,new,temp)
> ├── archive (with cur,new,temp)
> ├── archive_2014 (...)
> └── archive_2013
>
> And nothing else.

Hmm, interesting...

> It took a while to let go of folders, but the mu4e searching is so
> good I don't need it.

I see.

> And if you want more organization, you can use tags rather than
> folders.

Thanks. I hope one can tag many msgs at once?

> I understand others may need a bit more separation between work and
> personal, etc. But I'd consider fewer maildirs locally rather than
> more...

Yes, it's true I'm still conditioned with the experience from previous
mailers and I plan to merge my 'personal' and 'work' account, but still
need to consider, besides my spare Gmail ones, accounts of e.g. my wife
& m mother as separate ones?

Any hint how to incorporate those?


Sincerely,
Gour

--
One must deliver himself with the help of his mind, and not
degrade himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul,
and his enemy as well.

[Gour]

Ken Mankoff <man...@gmail.com> writes:

> I understand others may need a bit more separation between work and
> personal, etc.

If it's not clear, in my case I have need to operate with multiple
acocunts, each one having different email/from address, SMTP settings,
gpg-signing key etc.


Sincerely,
Gour

--
He is a perfect yogī who, by comparison to his own self,
sees the true equality of all beings, in both their
happiness and their distress, O Arjuna!

[Ken Mankoff]

On 2015-03-30 at 12:18, Gour <go...@atmarama.net> wrote:
> Yes, it's true I'm still conditioned with the experience from previous
> mailers and I plan to merge my 'personal' and 'work' account, but
> still need to consider, besides my spare Gmail ones, accounts of e.g.
> my wife & m mother as separate ones?
>
> Any hint how to incorporate those?

Your local system doesn't have to map the remote. You can have n INBOX folders and archive all to the same place, if you don't mind that. Or just one archive per INBOX, etc.

-k.

[Gour]

Ken Mankoff <man...@gmail.com> writes:

> Your local system doesn't have to map the remote. You can have n INBOX
> folders and archive all to the same place, if you don't mind that. Or
> just one archive per INBOX, etc.

You're right. I'm simply in a need of paradigm-shift when it goes to
organizing my email. :-)


Sincerely,
Gour

--
A person is said to be elevated in yoga when, having renounced
all material desires, he neither acts for sense gratification
nor engages in fruitive activities.

[Gour]

Ken Mankoff <man...@gmail.com> writes:

> Your local system doesn't have to map the remote. You can have n INBOX
> folders and archive all to the same place, if you don't mind that. Or
> just one archive per INBOX, etc.

Would you mind sharing what do you use for getting your mail and how you
setup it?

I'm trying to sync few of my IMAP accounts into single Maildir with
mbsync, but the latter complains with things like:

Error: UIDVALIDITY of master changed (got 26, expected 1423134396)

Any hint?


Sincerely,
Gour

--
Many, many births both you and I have passed. I can remember
all of them, but you cannot, O subduer of the enemy!

[Ken Mankoff]

On 2015-03-31 at 09:29, Gour <go...@atmarama.net> wrote:
> Ken Mankoff <man...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Your local system doesn't have to map the remote. You can have n INBOX
>> folders and archive all to the same place, if you don't mind that. Or
>> just one archive per INBOX, etc.
>
> Would you mind sharing what do you use for getting your mail and how you
> setup it?
>
> I'm trying to sync few of my IMAP accounts into single Maildir with
> mbsync, but the latter complains with things like:
>
> Error: UIDVALIDITY of master changed (got 26, expected 1423134396)
>
> Any hint?

I don't use mbsync but offlineimap, and I have 1:1 mapping of remote synced folders. Each local INBOX is one remote INBOX. But then when I archive locally, all archive commands go to one folder. I don't sync that folder. If you did, you should probably only sync it to one place.

-k.

[Gour]

Ken Mankoff <man...@gmail.com> writes:

> Each local INBOX is one remote INBOX.

Ahh, this clarifies things.

> But then when I archive locally, all archive commands go to one
> folder. I don't sync that folder.

Same here - I plan to do the same, iow. collect eveything into
single-yearly archive folder which is not going to be synced.

Thank you.


Sincerely,
Gour

--
Therefore, without being attached to the fruits of activities,
one should act as a matter of duty, for by working without
attachment one attains the Supreme.

[Eduardo Mercovich]

Hi.

Sorry the delay.

>> Your local system doesn't have to map the remote. You can have n INBOX
>> folders and archive all to the same place, if you don't mind that. Or
>> just one archive per INBOX, etc.

> You're right. I'm simply in a need of paradigm-shift when it goes to
> organizing my email. :-)

It happened the same to me when I started and I believe this is quite
important and we should -somehow- help new users with it.

The previous idea I had, based on previous and very good working
experience, conflicted with the offlineimap/mu4e paradigm. It took me a
few days to change my point of view and start to see the possibilities.

And I'm still in that process.

For example, the change from folders to search (and/or tags). Based on
search, I am experimenting with having only and INBOX and and
Archive. The rest are bookmarked searches (and let's not even talk about
server filtering rules and mobile sync).

Also, that changes if your backend is Google (with it's IMAP exposed
peculiarities) or another real IMAP server.

Regarding you wife and other people needs, could it be useful for them
to have a separate user in the computer, and each user should sync only
her/his account(s)?

Best...

--
e

[Gour]

Eduardo Mercovich <eduardo....@gmail.com> writes:

> Regarding you wife and other people needs, could it be useful for them
> to have a separate user in the computer, and each user should sync only
> her/his account(s)?

In my case it would not...my wife is mostly accessing mail via her phone and
for me it's simpler to do everything within single user account. :-)


Sincerely,
Gour

--
Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities
he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no
one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.