On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 06:27:41PM -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
It already supports Maildir. How do other mail clients do heirarchial
Good to know.
folder structures? I assume this is what you mean by saying that Evolution's file system isn't compatable with other mailers. Btw,
Yup - this is what I mean. There are two variations I've seen - the "Netscape way" and "everyone else" (which, I suppose makes 3, if you count Evo's way). Netscape allows mailboxes to contain both messages and other mailboxes - it does this by sticking a static extension onto folders while creating their directories on disk. So, if you created a mailbox called Evolution and nested a mailbox called DevList in it, you'd end up with the following directory structure: % ls -R Evolution Evolution.sbd/DevList Where Evolution and DevList are both mbox files. Most other mailers that I've found which support hierarchical mailboxes don't allow mailboxes to contain other mailboxes - they allow folders to organize mailboxes. So, my current ~/Mail directory contains both mbox files (for archives) and Maildir mailboxes (active boxes). Balsa scans the directory structure on startup and "figures out" which files/directories are mailboxes. It then creates a tree view of those mailboxes in their containing folders. Folders can contain mailboxes and other folders - but not messages. Mutt is similar, though since it doesn't graphically represent the folder structure it avoids the "scan on startup" bit and just let's you open other mailboxes by providing their path. There's another mailer called Chronos II (http://cronosii.sourceforge.net/) that does seem to allow mailboxes to contain messages and other mailboxes - I haven't downloaded it or tried it, but I suspect it does something like Netscape. So I could almost certainly continue to use mutt along side Evolution - I'd just have to navigate the Evo mail dir hierarchy while opening folders - annoying, but doable. I doubt that Evo and Balsa, or Evo and Cronos II or Evo and any other graphical MUA would get along nicely. Perhaps this is unavoidable, as there's no "standard" for nesting mailboxes and folders - but it's still pretty inconvenient. As for using IMAP (the other response so far) - yea, I suppose it's a solution, but it's not terribly user friendly in terms of setup and configuration. -- Dan Berger [dberger ix netcom com] http://home.ix.netcom.com/~dberger Nolite te bastardes carborundorum "If you can't explain it to an 8-year-old, you don't understand it" --Albert Einstein A982 E6B1 CB2F 7A49 843A 9297 DA73 4371 1F54 8D0C
Attachment:
pgp_Xrw9eJPVr.pgp
Description: PGP signature