Can mutt be persuaded to use a sensible maildir hierarchy?

[Chris Green]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 08:20:11AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 22Sep2020 17:46, Chris Green <cl at isbd.net> 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?
> 
> Are you talking about browsing a Maildir hierarchy from mutt, or just 
> the physical structure on disc?
> 
The actual structure on disk, as I explained I often move stuff around
and/or rename things, or check on space usage directly from the
command line and the maildir++ format makes this *very* difficult.


> I don't browse from within mutt (but see Kevin's reply) but I do have a 
> directory hierarchy. Admittedly it is shallow and does not have Maildirs 
> inside Maildirs, but my own folders are like this:
> 
>     ~/mail/foldername           # top level "current" folders
>     ~/mail/OLD/YYYY/foldername  # archived folders
>     ~/mail/O/foldername         # this year's archived folders
> 
> I've just got (d)elete bound to move messages into 
> "O/current-folder-name", and "O" is just a symlink to 
> "OLD/the-current-year".
> 
> So no Maildirs inside Maildirs, but several subdirectories.
> 
I don't think I want Maildirs inside Maildirs, mbox can't do that so I
don't expect it.


> Oh, don't forget: don't name any of your folders "tmp" or "cur" or 
> "new", those names are special for Maildir.
> 
Yes, easily forgotten, especially tmp. :-)

-- 
Chris Green