Can mutt be persuaded to use a sensible maildir hierarchy?

[Chris Green]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:40:09PM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote:
> On 2020-09-22 13:30, Chris Green wrote:
> 
> > > Does mutt still use the (IMHO silly) maildir hierarchy where mail
> > > 'folders' are simply represented by another '.' and name in the
> > > maildir directory name?
> > > 
> > > Is there some way I can get to use real directories to represent my
> > > hierarchy of mail?
> 
> 
> Originally maildirs had no subfolders; the '.' names were invented by Sam
> Varshavcik, I think a long time ago.[1] What you want also exists; it may be
> more recent. The IMAP server Dovecot, at least, can be configured to name
> maildir subfolders either way.
> 
Yes, exactly, it used to work the 'right' way! :-)


> I think Mutt can read or create a maildir at any pathname you supply,
> including the pathname of either kind of subfolder. What Kevin said about
> the new function <descend-directory> sounds like a handy shortcut.
> 
> > I just run mb2md on my existing mail folders, I ended up with a single
> > directory (~/Maildir) containing 2354 files mostly with ridiculously
> > long names!  This just isn't a sensible way to organise my mail.
> 
> 
> Do you mean you have 2354 mbox files, and now 2354 maildir subfolders? Maybe

Yes.


> you can write a shell script that renames all those maildir subfolders to
> the pathnames you want. Or a script that runs mb2md 2354 times, with an
> input and output pathname each time, if it can be used that way. Or use a
> different conversion tool.
> 
I think I might try that second idea, I can run mb2md (as you say)
2354 times and get the layout I want.  Then I can try mutt on it and
see if it's practical.


-- 
Chris Green