Re: /mail/sent-mail: No such file or directory (errno = 2)
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 01:46:03PM EDT, James Miller wrote:
> --- cga2000 <cga2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Same as Kyle W. I suspected the "~" that stands for
> > your home directory
> > was not getting expanded the usual way.
> >
> > Other possible differences:
> >
> > 1. I use the mbox format .. Do you?
> > 2. Permissions of "Sent" are set to "-rw-------"
> > 3. There's no dash in my file name ..
> > 4. ..
> >
> > .. can't see any of the above causing any of this ..
> > would not account
> > for the error message anyway .. but who knows?
> >
> > Oh, you did bounce mutt after making the changes,
> > right?
> >
> > Maybe one of the macros you've written is causing
> > this as a side-effect
>
> What do you mean by "bounce mutt"?
restart mutt ..
> Didn't find an
> explanation of that phrase in the FM.
I've often heard this when speaking about a server rather than a client
application ..
Sorry about being unclear..
> I was using
> Maildir format, not really understanding very well the
> difference between it and mbox.
My understanding of the mbox format is that the mail box's contents live
in a single file. When using the maildir format, on the other hand, the
mail box is implemented as a directory and each message is a separate
file in that directory.
Full understanding would of course go much further than that -- ie.
understanding the implications of using either format in order to make
an informed choice as to which is best suited to your lifestyle.
> I changed back to
> mbox, but that's actually irrelevant, as I determined.
> This ended up being sort of a false alarm. The whole
> problem is that I was trying to send the selfsame
> message while I went about editing .muttrc. The
> postposed message was not using the new settings, and
> so kept trying to save itself the previous erroneously
> entered sent-mail file/folder location.
Interesting. Must be some implementation-related aspects causing this.
> Once I tossed
> that message and tried to send a new one, everything
> worked as advertised. To me, the program trying to use
> an old setting for sending this message was unexpected
> behaviour and it took me some extra time and effort to
> determine that the problem lay there. Maybe someone
> else would have fingered it out sooner.
.. some would argue that the "unexpected behavior" was on your part ..
when testing something it's usually best to keep things as simple
(focused..?) as possible in order to avoid possible side-effects.
.. so the extra time and effort were probably not wasted.
> Thanks for the
> input on this issue.
>
.. for nothing, really .. quite logically, since you were the one in
the driving seat .. it's you who figured it out.
Thanks
cga