Any way to disable sorting of 'mailboxes'?
C. Laurence Gonsalves
other words, when I run:
mutt -y
I'd like the listing of mailboxes to be in exactly the order I
specified, rather than in alphabetical order.
The reason I want this, BTW, is that I'd like to order my mailboxes
roughly by the "urgency" of the messages they contain.
Hendrik Mangels
> mutt -y
>
> I'd like the listing of mailboxes to be in exactly the order I
> specified, rather than in alphabetical order.
AFAIK not possible. By pressing "o" you can sort messages by
"date", "alphabetical" or by "size".
Hendrik
Sven Guckes
> Is there any way to disable the sorting of the list of
> mailboxes? In other words, when I run "mutt -y" I'd like the
> listing of mailboxes to be in exactly the order I specified,
> mailboxes roughly by the "urgency" of the messages they contain.
not possible - unless the alphabetical list of your
mailboxes happens to match its priority list.. hint hint
Sven
Thorsten Gunkel
> Is there any way to disable the sorting of the list of mailboxes? In
> other words, when I run:
> mutt -y
> I'd like the listing of mailboxes to be in exactly the order I
> specified, rather than in alphabetical order.
,----
| sort_browser
|
| Type: sort order
| Default: subject
|
| Specifies how to sort entries in the file browser. By default, the
| entries are sorted alphabetically. Valid values:
|
| alpha (alphabetically)
| date
| size
| unsorted
|
| You may optionally use the reverse- prefix to specify reverse sorting
| order (example: set sort_browser=reverse-date).
`----
> The reason I want this, BTW, is that I'd like to order my mailboxes
> roughly by the "urgency" of the messages they contain.
HTH
Thorsten
--
There's a door
Where does it go?
It stays where it is, I think.
(Terry Pratchett, Eric)
C. Laurence Gonsalves
Sven Guckes <use...@guckes.net> wrote:
> * C. Laurence Gonsalves <clgo...@alumni.uwaterloo.ca> [2004-08-20]:
> > Is there any way to disable the sorting of the list of
> > mailboxes? In other words, when I run "mutt -y" I'd like the
> > listing of mailboxes to be in exactly the order I specified,
> not possible - unless the alphabetical list of your
> mailboxes happens to match its priority list.. hint hint
Yeah, that's what I'm doing now. It's very annoying to maintain though,
because whenever I decide to change the priority of a folder I have to
rename the file, and edit both my .muttrc and my .procmailrc.
Dave Pearson
<URL:http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-6.html#sort_browser> and a quick
test here seems to suggest otherwise. With $sort_browser set to unsorted the
initial order of a "mutt -y" seems to be exactly that specified by my
`mailboxes' setting. Are you suggesting that this is a fluke?
--
Dave Pearson: | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams
http://www.davep.org/ | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards
Mutt: | muttrc2html - muttrc -> HTML utility
http://www.davep.org/mutt/ | muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode
Dave Pearson
> Yeah, that's what I'm doing now. It's very annoying to maintain though,
> because whenever I decide to change the priority of a folder I have to
> rename the file, and edit both my .muttrc and my .procmailrc.
If you wanted to do things this way how about having procmail deliver to a
consistent set of folder names but have mutt look at and work with a set of
links to them? Is there a reason why that wouldn't work?
C. Laurence Gonsalves
Thorsten Gunkel <tgu...@gmx.de> wrote:
> C. Laurence Gonsalves <clgo...@alumni.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > I'd like the listing of mailboxes to be in exactly the order I
> > specified, rather than in alphabetical order.
> | sort_browser
...
> | unsorted
> |
> | You may optionally use the reverse- prefix to specify reverse sorting
> | order (example: set sort_browser=reverse-date).
Thanks! That appears to work.
The only drawback is that if I ask mutt to show me files instead of
mailboxes (eg: with change-dir or toggle-mailboxes) they aren't sorted
either. That's a reasonable trade-off for me though, because I rarely
look at files in the browser, and when I do I can always use 'o' to sort
them.
C. Laurence Gonsalves
Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
> * C. Laurence Gonsalves <clgo...@alumni.uwaterloo.ca>:
>
> > Yeah, that's what I'm doing now. It's very annoying to maintain
> > though, because whenever I decide to change the priority of a folder
> > I have to rename the file, and edit both my .muttrc and my
> > .procmailrc.
>
> If you wanted to do things this way how about having procmail deliver
> to a consistent set of folder names but have mutt look at and work
> with a set of links to them? Is there a reason why that wouldn't
> work?
I'd actually thought about this a bit, but there were two things that
prevented me from trying it.
First, it's only slightly less of a maintenance headache: I'd have to
both move a link and edit my .muttrc to change the ordering, and it
actually raises the cost of subscribing to a new list because I'll have
to create the link.
The second issue is that I was concerned about file locking issues.
Maybe I'm too paranoid, but I was worried that if mutt and procmail know
my folders by different names they may both end up trying to modify the
same folder simultaneously, leading to mailbox corruption.