2004-01-09T08:46:31 Mads Laursen: > 1) Is there an easier way than my hack? Searching the manual, the list > and google turned up nothing solid. Am I really the first one to > want this? I don't know, but I think it's possible that at lest some of us have come up with email handling practices that dodge some of the need for this kind of thing. Not that they would necessarily solve your case, but.... The way I speed my email handling is by a chain of tools and scripts that automate various mail filing. I use Maildirs, this makes some kinds of operations easier to script. procmail files list traffic into list-specific folders, all of which are listed (after "!", ~/Maildir/, my individual inbox) in mutt's "mailboxes" list. I've got a little script, which I run fairly frequently, that moves messages that I've read (no longer "new") to an archive directory, that's an ever-growing mirror of my inbox collection. I use set nomark_old, so messages remain "new" (in Maildir's new/ subdir) until I've actually opened them, or marked them read with "N". Somewhat less frequently, but still at least daily, I index the archive directory with swish++, so I can use a mailsearch script to quickly find messages no matter how big my archives get. With these tricks, I find less need for collapsing threads. I really am not fond of mutt's thread collapsing, because it behaves like "limit"-ing to only the thread heads; this means things like searches and limit views don't see the followups. I'm a long way from being an expert on all of mutt's features, and I've not updated to the newest and bluest, I'm still running 1.4.1. -Bennett
Attachment:
pgpeKIWwctYIy.pgp
Description: PGP signature