Re: mutt's .mutt folders when saving attachments?
- To: mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: mutt's .mutt folders when saving attachments?
- From: Kyle Wheeler <kyle-mutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:24:41 -0500
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=memoryhole.net; h=date :from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; s=default; bh=wBAjj9nFTQnedgUhV5FqnU74pTU=; b=VrLv t0YZPn4VwEhF3JfdJfdgKxsI3gw8AMknEctvXy2+6wBs5rruogyIc7cDRM9dvyHx uXsHCnH2+V3dnK9UUFA13If1CjBKRK/xvfiHl+cGtW0YCyCeK4nMuK393HNG3ZlG nriikcW351APz3fHbhgu0kJj493UjOzG0Lpdj/A=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=memoryhole.net; b=VTQn3hVuWJ251EEfVj8JDQNcXqeopLfoLLVisB86gBM8P8dALmJR8qIQLS5yY9Pt+gfJ17Q0LBwbUvf+KEMvb1dd2nBkP4mVTvQIVb2Pr+KBvEh8RtggsHE5C903BcMcchvzUtZ17Wm3jwucwic8GxhQ/B/2xoPoohbe37nGTq4=; h=Received:Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Mail-Followup-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:OpenPGP:User-Agent;
- In-reply-to: <20080923093127.GB2866@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-post: <mailto:mutt-users@mutt.org>
- List-unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@mutt.org, body only "unsubscribe mutt-users"
- Mail-followup-to: mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
- Openpgp: id=CA8E235E; url=http://www.memoryhole.net/~kyle/kyle-pgp.asc; preference=signencrypt
- References: <20080923093127.GB2866@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-08-31)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday, September 23 at 10:31 AM, quoth Tim Chown:
> I didn't get a reply when I asked before, still keen to find out how
> to avoid mutt creating/leaving an empty .muttxxxxxx fo9lder in the
> directory in which an attachment is saved. I assume there's some
> option to autodelete these folders?
There is no "option" to auto-delete those folders, they are deleted
whenever possible. The reason they stick around is when there's a
filesystem problem, and mutt doesn't think the directory is empty.
Let me guess: you're using either vfat or something like sshfs?
It boils down to the fact that some filesystems do not support
operations that are necessary for safe operation, and give
inconsistent or unreliable error codes when you try. This is yet
another reason why using these sorts of filesystems for anything
important in a unix system is a really bad idea. For more information,
check this: http://marc.info/?l=mutt-dev&m=116775858411732&w=2
~Kyle
- --
The most important thing a father can do for his children is to love
their mother.
-- Fr. Theodore Hesburgh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!
iEYEARECAAYFAkjZCjkACgkQBkIOoMqOI14MJQCgt7luJa5zEutjpEgHiUm8pb4f
cgQAninVcBcmCz0RfIqfvdlocIUNmdIc
=dfWr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----