Need good pgm to sort/file/filter/classify email in UNIX-style mbox's?
Tim Bessie
transferred it all to my home machine (running Windows 2000, although
I have Slackware Linux installed on a partition there as well).
I would like to have a nice, dependable Windows-based (or perhaps
X11-based) program that I can use to view all the email boxes, filter
them, sort them, transfer them from one email box to another visually,
etc.
I can do this in Pine, but it's a little painful, since I can only
have one view of my email at a time. As well, I keep all my email
in UNIX mbox format because I like to be able to use UNIX-style
tools (Cygwin on Windows) to look through it, edit it, etc.
Has anybody seen a tool that can deal with UNIX-style mbox's and has
the mail-manipulation features I describe?
- Tim
mjt
> Has anybody seen a tool that can deal with UNIX-style mbox's and has
> the mail-manipulation features I describe?
... sylpheed[claws]
http://freshmeat.net/projects/sylpheed/?topic_id=31
http://sylpheed-claws.sourceforge.net/
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael J. Tobler: motorcyclist, surfer, # Black holes result
skydiver, and author: "Inside Linux", # when God divides the
"C++ HowTo", "C++ Unleashed" # universe by zero
Tim Bessie
mjt <mjtobler@removethis_consultant.com> wrote:
>On 20 Sep 2002 19:10:35 GMT, bes...@lenny.sfrn.dnai.com (Tim Bessie) revealed:
>
>> Has anybody seen a tool that can deal with UNIX-style mbox's and has
>> the mail-manipulation features I describe?
>
>... sylpheed[claws]
>
>http://freshmeat.net/projects/sylpheed/?topic_id=31
>http://sylpheed-claws.sourceforge.net/
Thanks, but (from the site)...
"The messages are managed by MH format, and you'll be able tos
use it together with another mailer based on MH format (like Mew).
You can also utilize fetchmail and/or procmail, and external programs
on receiving (like inc or imget)."
Unless I'm mistaken, MH format is not the same as UNIX mbox format.
Am I wrong?
- Tim
Erik de Castro Lopo
>
> Thanks, but (from the site)...
>
> "The messages are managed by MH format, and you'll be able tos
> use it together with another mailer based on MH format (like Mew).
> You can also utilize fetchmail and/or procmail, and external programs
> on receiving (like inc or imget)."
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, MH format is not the same as UNIX mbox format.
> Am I wrong?
Sylpheed stores its own messages in MH format but can import mbox.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nos...@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"The RIAA is obsessed to the point of comedy with the frustration
of having its rules broken, without considering whether such rules
might be standing in the way of increased revenues. Indeed,
Napster and Gnutella may turn out to be the two best music-marketing
gimmicks yet devised, if only the RIAA would take its head out of
its ass long enough to realise it."
-- Thomas C Greene on www.theregister.co.uk
Christopher Browne
You are correct.
Personally, I despise the UNIX mbox format, as it /isn't/ any kind of
standard (despite the fact that so many people are dumb enough to
think it is), it's fragile, slow, and generally inefficient.
The /classic/ flame against the Windows Registry is thus:
"Lumping configuration data, security data, kernel tuning
parameters, etc. into one monstrous fragile binary data structure is
really dumb." - David F. Skoll
It applies equally well to "UNIX mbox."
Lumping sets of messages into one monstrous fragile text data
structure is also really dumb.
I'd not point at Sylpheed, anyways; it's /not/ a tool for
manipulating 'UNIX mbox' files, but rather a graphical MUA. It's
quite a nice MUA, but that's beside the point, as it's /not/ primarily
the sort of tool you're looking for.
Procmail is the "classic" tool for processing mail to redirect it to
different "UNIX mbox" folders. Its syntax leaves a lot to be desired.
Sieve is an IETF standard, RFC 3028
<http://www.cyrusoft.com/sieve/>
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3028.txt?number=3028>
You might also look at:
<http://www.flounder.net/~mrsam/maildrop/>
<http://www.ee.umd.edu/medlab/filter/software.html>
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc@" "sirhc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/mail.html#MH
It's a little known fact that the Dark Ages were caused by the Y1K
problem.
mjt
> >http://freshmeat.net/projects/sylpheed/?topic_id=31
> >http://sylpheed-claws.sourceforge.net/
>
> Thanks, but (from the site)...
>
> "The messages are managed by MH format, and you'll be able tos
> use it together with another mailer based on MH format (like Mew).
> You can also utilize fetchmail and/or procmail, and external programs
> on receiving (like inc or imget)."
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, MH format is not the same as UNIX mbox format.
> Am I wrong?
... no, you're not, but: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mtobler/syl.png
Tim Bessie
Erik de Castro Lopo <nos...@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
>Tim Bessie wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, but (from the site)...
>>
>> "The messages are managed by MH format, and you'll be able tos
>> use it together with another mailer based on MH format (like Mew).
>> You can also utilize fetchmail and/or procmail, and external programs
>> on receiving (like inc or imget)."
>>
>> Unless I'm mistaken, MH format is not the same as UNIX mbox format.
>> Am I wrong?
>
>Sylpheed stores its own messages in MH format but can import mbox.
That ain't good, then -- I want to work entirely in mbox format.
It's already annoying that Pine still won't allow you to set a default mailbox
format, and I have to preface every created mailbox with #driver.unix
- Tim
Tim Bessie
Christopher Browne <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote:
>
>Personally, I despise the UNIX mbox format, as it /isn't/ any kind of
>standard (despite the fact that so many people are dumb enough to
>think it is), it's fragile, slow, and generally inefficient.
I like it because it's easily human-readable, and doesn't require any
tools to decipher it. I use lots of command-line programs to process
it's text -- nice to be able to grep through it, etc. Also, I can read
it in Vim, which is my preferred editor.
Those are my only reason for preferring it.
>The /classic/ flame against the Windows Registry is thus:
> "Lumping configuration data, security data, kernel tuning
> parameters, etc. into one monstrous fragile binary data structure is
> really dumb." - David F. Skoll
>
>It applies equally well to "UNIX mbox."
>
>Lumping sets of messages into one monstrous fragile text data
>structure is also really dumb.
I've never had an mbox fall apart on me. :-)
>I'd not point at Sylpheed, anyways; it's /not/ a tool for
>manipulating 'UNIX mbox' files, but rather a graphical MUA. It's
>quite a nice MUA, but that's beside the point, as it's /not/ primarily
>the sort of tool you're looking for.
>
>Procmail is the "classic" tool for processing mail to redirect it to
>different "UNIX mbox" folders. Its syntax leaves a lot to be desired.
Well, I already use procmail, but for filtering mail as it arrives.
What I WANT is a graphical interface to some powerful filtering facilities
that I can run on-the-fly, as well as being able to view my entire mail
hierarchy graphically.
procmail would definitely NOT be it.
- Tim
Tim Bessie
mjt <mjtobler@removethis_consultant.com> wrote:
>On 20 Sep 2002 21:48:05 GMT, fromU...@apeshitSpamBlockerText.com (Tim Bessie) revealed:
>
>> >http://freshmeat.net/projects/sylpheed/?topic_id=31
>> >http://sylpheed-claws.sourceforge.net/
>>
>> Thanks, but (from the site)...
>>
>> "The messages are managed by MH format, and you'll be able tos
>> use it together with another mailer based on MH format (like Mew).
>> You can also utilize fetchmail and/or procmail, and external programs
>> on receiving (like inc or imget)."
>>
>> Unless I'm mistaken, MH format is not the same as UNIX mbox format.
>> Am I wrong?
>
>... no, you're not, but: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mtobler/syl.png
Hmmm, cute. I may take a look at it (as long as it doesn't force me into
using another mailbox format as an intermediary -- I've found tools that do that
tend to lose header information, and I like them preserved as-is).
- Tim
Mark Crispin
> That ain't good, then -- I want to work entirely in mbox format.
> It's already annoying that Pine still won't allow you to set a default mailbox
> format, and I have to preface every created mailbox with #driver.unix
Huh? #driver.unix/ *is* the default format in UNIX Pine.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Tim Bessie
Mark Crispin <M...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Tim Bessie wrote:
>> That ain't good, then -- I want to work entirely in mbox format.
>> It's already annoying that Pine still won't allow you to set a default mailbox
>> format, and I have to preface every created mailbox with #driver.unix
>
>Huh? #driver.unix/ *is* the default format in UNIX Pine.
Sorry, I forgot to mention, I'm using PCPine, which wants to use mbx as the default.
I also have Cygwin pine -- not sure what it's default is.
Of course, I would always copy all my files over to my Linux partition and
have a go at it there. Just wondered if there was something in the Windows
world that did this, since that's where I do most of my work (I'm a software
developer and usually work on a Win2K platform).
Is this THE Mark Crispin? I think I used to see you on Usenet years ago
in the days of Mark Horton and the Great Renaming and all that, no?
- Tim
Eduardo Chappa
:) =In article <Pine.WNT.4.50.02092...@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>,
:) Mark Crispin <M...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
:) >
:) >Huh? #driver.unix/ *is* the default format in UNIX Pine.
:)
:) I also have Cygwin pine -- not sure what it's default is.
In case anyone wonders, it's the unix driver too.
Mark Crispin
> >> It's already annoying that Pine still won't allow you to set a default mailbox
> >> format, and I have to preface every created mailbox with #driver.unix
> >Huh? #driver.unix/ *is* the default format in UNIX Pine.
> Sorry, I forgot to mention, I'm using PCPine, which wants to use mbx as
> the default.
You can add something like this to the folder-collections setting in your
pinerc file:
"new folders" #driver.unix/mail\[]
Then, just create the new folder in the "new folders" collection.
Unless you have some special reason (such as reading the folder in another
program) for using traditional UNIX mailbox format, I strongly suggest
that you use mbx instead. mbx is *much* faster. On Windows, it should
also be safer than traditional UNIX mailbox format.
> I also have Cygwin pine -- not sure what it's default is.
Since the Cygwin port is a UNIX port, it would be traditional UNIX.
> Is this THE Mark Crispin? I think I used to see you on Usenet years ago
> in the days of Mark Horton and the Great Renaming and all that, no?
Yup. On the net for nearly 30 years. MIT before 1977, Stanford in 1977 -
1988, and here at UW since 1988. I wrote the first PDP-10 long leader NCP
(you're a real oldtimer if you know what that means!!); the TELNET client
on ITS, WAITS, and TOPS-20; most of the other clients and servers on
WAITS; and most of the TOPS-20 mailsystem including its SMTP and IMAP
client and server. I'm also guilty of writing the only RFC specifically
listed with "note date of issue" in the index. :-)
These days I work on IMAP protocol/software, and am a member of the team
that brings you Pine...
Tim Bessie
Mark Crispin <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
[ snippage ]
>You can add something like this to the folder-collections setting in your
>pinerc file:
> "new folders" #driver.unix/mail\[]
>Then, just create the new folder in the "new folders" collection.
Thanks for the tips -- I had seen NO mention of setting the default
mailbox format in the documentation, the faq, of in Usenet. First time
I've seen it... pretty odd.
>Unless you have some special reason (such as reading the folder in another
>program) for using traditional UNIX mailbox format, I strongly suggest
>that you use mbx instead. mbx is *much* faster. On Windows, it should
>also be safer than traditional UNIX mailbox format.
Yes, my special reason is that I like to be able to examine the mailboxes
with a text editor, Cygwin command-line tools, etc. It's just my thang. :-)
>
>> Is this THE Mark Crispin? I think I used to see you on Usenet years ago
>> in the days of Mark Horton and the Great Renaming and all that, no?
>
>Yup. On the net for nearly 30 years. MIT before 1977, Stanford in 1977 -
>1988, and here at UW since 1988. I wrote the first PDP-10 long leader NCP
>(you're a real oldtimer if you know what that means!!); the TELNET client
>on ITS, WAITS, and TOPS-20; most of the other clients and servers on
>WAITS; and most of the TOPS-20 mailsystem including its SMTP and IMAP
>client and server. I'm also guilty of writing the only RFC specifically
>listed with "note date of issue" in the index. :-)
>
>These days I work on IMAP protocol/software, and am a member of the team
>that brings you Pine...
I would love to have a job like yours -- I got stuck in San Francisco Start-Up
Hell and have yet to escape. Need any good old timers up there? (granted, not
as old as, um, you, but old enough). I started midlin' young on these machines,
was about 13 when I first started playing around with the PDP-11/45s at UC Santa Cruz.
RSTS/E, woo-hee what fun. :-(
Someone introduced me to the Arpanet (actually, it was Michael Toy, did you
know him?), and I got hooked around 1980... used to dial up the Arpa TIP
at Nasa-Ames and connect to MIT-AI and chat with folks, read the phreaker
mailing lists, etc.
- Tim
Mark Crispin
> Thanks for the tips -- I had seen NO mention of setting the default
> mailbox format in the documentation, the faq, of in Usenet. First time
> I've seen it... pretty odd.
Generally, using any format other than the default is considered to be a
power tool. There is documentation about alternative formats, but it's in
the IMAP toolkit documentation; Pine uses the IMAP toolkit's c-client
library as its internal engine.
Erik de Castro Lopo
>
> =In article <amg8gr$5o4r3$2...@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>,
> Christopher Browne <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote:
> >
> >Personally, I despise the UNIX mbox format, as it /isn't/ any kind of
> >standard (despite the fact that so many people are dumb enough to
> >think it is), it's fragile, slow, and generally inefficient.
>
> I like it because it's easily human-readable, and doesn't require any
> tools to decipher it.
Same can be said of MH format with the difference being that MH format
is one message per file.
> I use lots of command-line programs to process
> it's text -- nice to be able to grep through it, etc. Also, I can read
> it in Vim, which is my preferred editor.
That all works for MH.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nos...@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"The growing and dangerous intrusion of this new technology,
threatens an entire industry's economic vitality and future
security." -- Jack Valenti (MPAA president) on the video
cassette recorder, 1982.
Jeffrey Goldberg
but at least that group is narrower, so we'll annoy fewer people going
off-topic]
On Sep 21, 2002 Tim Bessie wrote
in <amh76f$ati$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
> >> Is this THE Mark Crispin?
[...]
> Someone introduced me to the Arpanet (actually, it was Michael Toy, did
> you [MRC] know him?), and I got hooked around 1980...
I vaguely knew him. I was at Crown College from 1979-1984. I also
vaguely knew MRC (though I don't think we every physically met) at
Stanford in the years that followed.
I regret not fully appreciating either at the time.
Your name seems familiar to me, but I'm not sure if I'm remembering it
from UCSC at that time or whether it is a "reconstructed memory".
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
Tim Bessie
Mark Crispin <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Tim Bessie wrote:
>> Thanks for the tips -- I had seen NO mention of setting the default
>> mailbox format in the documentation, the faq, of in Usenet. First time
>> I've seen it... pretty odd.
>
>Generally, using any format other than the default is considered to be a
>power tool. There is documentation about alternative formats, but it's in
>the IMAP toolkit documentation; Pine uses the IMAP toolkit's c-client
>library as its internal engine.
Thanks again. By the way, no comments on my nostalgic rant?
Or ideas about possible jobs up there?
- Tim
LinuxBear
Forgie my ignorance, but how about trying mutt? You would be amazed how
much unix tools can work in conjubction with it
Steve Holdoway
wrote:
Oh, no it isn't! At one file _per user_, the filesystem manages
everything quite well. Try some of the alternatives... for example,
the old Uniplex one which creates loads of files ( up to 5 IIRC ) per
email. Then try and back up the file system containing two and a half
million stupid little files. You won't call it stupid then, unless
you're on time and a half to watch the tape drive go round!
>
>I'd not point at Sylpheed, anyways; it's /not/ a tool for
>manipulating 'UNIX mbox' files, but rather a graphical MUA. It's
>quite a nice MUA, but that's beside the point, as it's /not/ primarily
>the sort of tool you're looking for.
>
>Procmail is the "classic" tool for processing mail to redirect it to
>different "UNIX mbox" folders. Its syntax leaves a lot to be desired.
No it isn't. procmail is built on sendmail, which _is_ the classic
tool. You just have to learn M4 to get the best out of it.
>
>Sieve is an IETF standard, RFC 3028
><http://www.cyrusoft.com/sieve/>
><http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3028.txt?number=3028>
>
>You might also look at:
><http://www.flounder.net/~mrsam/maildrop/>
><http://www.ee.umd.edu/medlab/filter/software.html>
Why not set up an imap mail server on your linux box, and then run
Eudora against it? Or outlook express even?
Try www.extremail.com or look for other offerings on freshmeat.
Steve
Tim Bessie
Steve Holdoway <st...@itemfront.ltd.uk> wrote:
>Why not set up an imap mail server on your linux box, and then run
>Eudora against it? Or outlook express even?
>
>Try www.extremail.com or look for other offerings on freshmeat.
I may try that -- I prefer to work with local files if I can.
Keeps things simple. :-)
- Tim
Mark Crispin
> >standard (despite the fact that so many people are dumb enough to
> >think it is), it's fragile, slow, and generally inefficient.
Slow and generally inefficient, yes; fragile, no.
> >The /classic/ flame against the Windows Registry is thus:
> > "Lumping configuration data, security data, kernel tuning
> > parameters, etc. into one monstrous fragile binary data structure is
> > really dumb." - David F. Skoll
> >
> >It applies equally well to "UNIX mbox."
This compares apples and oranges. The Windows Registry is a binary
datastructure, which can only be manipulated through a single application.
UNIX mbox files can be edited by just about any text editor in the world.
This is the single good feature about UNIX mbox files.
> >Lumping sets of messages into one monstrous fragile text data
> >structure is also really dumb.
> Oh, no it isn't! At one file _per user_, the filesystem manages
> everything quite well. Try some of the alternatives... for example,
> the old Uniplex one which creates loads of files ( up to 5 IIRC ) per
> email. Then try and back up the file system containing two and a half
> million stupid little files. You won't call it stupid then, unless
> you're on time and a half to watch the tape drive go round!
Well, yes and no here too.
If you have users who collect tens of thousands of messages, a single
change to the mailbox file results in the entire thing having to be backed
up. This is particularly bad when it's the INBOX.
One of the two arguments for the one-file/one-message model of mailbox are
that backup is much cheaper since old mail doesn't get backed up. That
argument presumes that most backups are incremental backups. It also
presumes that restores are rare enough that it's alright to pay the (much
higher) cost of restore with many files. The real lesson here is that you
can't decide your mail store model and backup strategy independently; they
must be decided together.
The second argument is a claim that a filesystem is inherantly more
reliable than any database. The claim is false; a filesystem is nothing
more than a kernel-based database. However, speaking practically, most
filesystems ARE more reliable than most databases. Filesystems generally
get much more thorough exercise and debugging. It should also be noted
that most database corruption is caused by the filesystem corrupting a
file. The presumption is that most filesystem corruption is to a file
(resulting in loss of a single file) rather than to a directory (resulting
in the loss of many files), which also is not necessarily the case.
Another presumption is that there is an either-or choice between one file
for the entire mailbox vs. one-file/one-message. There is a third choice,
which is a hybrid. This combines certain of the advantages of both.
Old, rarely-modified messages end up in the single big file; while new,
active messages get either a file to themselves or are in one or more
smaller files of active messages. The incremental backups don't back up
the big file because it hasn't changed, and any corruption tends to
happens only in the active messages and not in the big file. Of course,
with combined advantages you get some combined disadvantages too; mailbox
wide actions are no longer atomic and you beat on the filesystem more.
We're actually getting some empirical data on a hybrid format, and hope to
be able to report results in the not-too-distant future. We believe that,
in our environment, a hybrid format may be the most suitable.
Kresimir Petric
if you feel like programming you can try wodMailbox ActiveX component that
can open those mailboxes for you, parse messages and provide you with
contents. www.weonlydo.com
Kind regards,
Kreso
"Tim Bessie" <fromU...@apeshitSpamBlockerText.com> wrote in message
news:amgd2u$66p$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Nancy McGough
>
> if you feel like programming you can try wodMailbox ActiveX component that
> can open those mailboxes for you, parse messages and provide you with
> contents. www.weonlydo.com
wodMailbox might be a fine program, but be aware that they don't know much
about IMAP because they say:
So, one file contain all the messages for one user. If user moves
to different computer or account, it's easiest this way to move
his email also. Moreover, IMAP and similarly 'larger' protocols
keep all the mailboxes this way - all users' messages in one
file, on per-user basis.
Many (maybe most?) IMAP servers, such as Cyrus and Courier, do not
"store all users' messages in one file."
Nancy
--
PROCMAIL <http://www.ii.com/internet/robots/procmail/qs/>
IMAP <http://www.ii.com/internet/messaging/imap/isps/>
PINE <http://www.ii.com/internet/messaging/pine/>
-- I N F I N I T E I N K www.ii.com N A N C Y M c G O U G H --
Chris F.A. Johnson
> On 27 Sep 2002 Kresimir Petric (kr...@NOSPAMweonlydo.com) wrote:
>>
>> if you feel like programming you can try wodMailbox ActiveX component that
>> can open those mailboxes for you, parse messages and provide you with
>> contents. www.weonlydo.com
>
> wodMailbox might be a fine program, but be aware that they don't know much
> about IMAP because they say:
>
> So, one file contain all the messages for one user. If user moves
> to different computer or account, it's easiest this way to move
> his email also. Moreover, IMAP and similarly 'larger' protocols
> keep all the mailboxes this way - all users' messages in one
> file, on per-user basis.
>
> Many (maybe most?) IMAP servers, such as Cyrus and Courier, do not
> "store all users' messages in one file."
Or is that just a typo for "[a] user's messages"?
--
Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfaj.freeshell.org
===================================================================
My code (if any) in this post is copyright 2002, Chris F.A. Johnson
and may be copied under the terms of the GNU General Public License
Kresimir Petric
you're right - but we're talking about Pine here. Doesn't pine access
mailboxes directly, without IMAP protocol infrastructure, rather opening
mailbox(es) directly?
Anyway, not to go too far off the topic here, what's happening with Pine
development? I don't see it anymore available in regular packages (for
Debian, for example). I miss it too much, I admit.
Kind regards,
Kreso
"Nancy McGough" <nm-this-addr...@no.sp.am> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.49.99.0209...@zebes.dreamhost.com...
Tim Bessie
Netscape (simple, available, etc.).
The thing is, I need it to do things like "sort on ANY field" and
"display ANY field in the message-list header" and "display ALL headers
in the message". Netscape doesn't seem to have these capabilities.
If it did, it'd be a fine program to sort through my huge volumes of
old email.
Any other Windows-based mbox-format-reading clients you all know of?
One that can do these things I want?
Event better would be if it could import Eurdora and Outlook folders and
write them as Unix mbox files (I'm trying to take all the disparate email
I've received over the years and put them all in one format).
- Tim
=In article <amfrrb$oj1$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
Tim Bessie <bes...@lenny.sfrn.dnai.com> wrote:
>I have piles and piles of email from years of Pine usage, and I've
>transferred it all to my home machine (running Windows 2000, although
>I have Slackware Linux installed on a partition there as well).
>
>I would like to have a nice, dependable Windows-based (or perhaps
>X11-based) program that I can use to view all the email boxes, filter
>them, sort them, transfer them from one email box to another visually,
>etc.
>
>I can do this in Pine, but it's a little painful, since I can only
>have one view of my email at a time. As well, I keep all my email
>in UNIX mbox format because I like to be able to use UNIX-style
>tools (Cygwin on Windows) to look through it, edit it, etc.
>
>Has anybody seen a tool that can deal with UNIX-style mbox's and has
>the mail-manipulation features I describe?
>
>- Tim
>
Eduardo Chappa
:) Event better would be if it could import Eurdora and Outlook folders
:) and write them as Unix mbox files (I'm trying to take all the disparate
:) email I've received over the years and put them all in one format).
There is a program called "oe2mbx" that should transform folders from the
Outlook Express format to mbox format. Do a search in google for it.
Hopefully it will work for you.
Tim Bessie
Eduardo Chappa <cha...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
>*** Tim Bessie (fromU...@apeshitSpamBlockerText.com) wrote in...:
>
>:) Event better would be if it could import Eurdora and Outlook folders
>:) and write them as Unix mbox files (I'm trying to take all the disparate
>:) email I've received over the years and put them all in one format).
>
>There is a program called "oe2mbx" that should transform folders from the
>Outlook Express format to mbox format. Do a search in google for it.
>Hopefully it will work for you.
Is Outlook Express format the same as regular Outlook format?
Anyway, I'll check it out -- thanks!
- Tim
Malke
No, IIRC OE stores its stuff in the *.dbx format and Outlook in *.pst
files. A quick look at my Evolution 1.0.8 shows an ability to import
files from the old OE 4 (they're up to v. 6 now) in *.mbx format. I
don't have any of those, so I can't tell you if it actually works or
not.
Cheers,
Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
remove 3's to reply
John Murtari
> (Tim> Bessie) revealed:
> > >
> > >> >http://freshmeat.net/projects/sylpheed/?topic_id=31
> > >> >http://sylpheed-claws.sourceforge.net/
> > >>
> > >> Thanks, but (from the site)...
> > >>
> > >> "The messages are managed by MH format, and you'll be able tos
> > >> use it together with another mailer based on MH format (like Mew).
> > >> You can also utilize fetchmail and/or procmail, and external programs
> > >> on receiving (like inc or imget)."
> > >>
> > >> Unless I'm mistaken, MH format is not the same as UNIX mbox format.
> > >> Am I wrong?
> > >
> > >... no, you're not, but: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mtobler/syl.png
> >
> > Hmmm, cute. I may take a look at it (as long as it doesn't force me into
> > using another mailbox format as an intermediary -- I've found tools that
> do that
> > tend to lose header information, and I like them preserved as-is).
> >
We were struggling for a good mail program when moving from Solaris
to Linux. We finally came back to an xemacs package called "vm". I
was simply amazed by how well it worked and how configurable it was.
You can tell it to sort and archive messages for you based on anything
in the header.
We had tried evolution, sylpheed, etc... but either had bugs, were
way too sloooooow, and weren't very configurable. To get it just
go to http://www.xemacs.org/. YOu should see a link on the left
side for something like Add-On/Customization packages, follow that
and then look for "VM"
We deal with a LOT of mail and it hasn't missed a beat, destroyed
any mailboxes, etc.... We were all impressed.
--
John
___________________________________________________________________
John Murtari Software Workshop Inc.
jmur...@thebook.com 315.635-1968(x-211) "TheBook.Com" (TM)
http://www.thebook.com/