On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 01:13:11PM -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 17:02:08 +0100, Chris Green wrote: > > However there is a minor downside in the file browser (well directory > > browser really isn't it), the information shown against the > > directories (at the bottom level these are maildir mailboxes) is > > pretty useless, what I am seeing now is like the following:- > > > > selling/ Sep 25 12:39 0K > > shopping/ Sep 25 12:39 0K > > software/ Sep 25 12:39 0K > > telecoms/ Sep 25 12:39 0K > > > > No size information and the date is just the date of creation of the > > parent directory, not the latest message. With mbox you get a 'last > > message' date and a meaningful size. > > That's most likely a "last edited" date. Adding flags or labels to a > message would have reset that time as well. These directories were last > edited on the date you created them, so not much is going to change > that. You'd want access time, but that isn't reliable anyways (see > relatime and noatime mount options) because it makes reads potentially > very expensive writes to update atimes all the way up the tree.
They're on a fast SSD on the same system as mutt is running on so 'very expensive' is probably not an issue. > > > Are there any configuration options to improve this for maildir? > > Not really? You might be able to get recursive size info, but that's > potentially very expensive to compute, so isn't usually done by default. > As I said 'very expensive' may not be an issue. > > This is by no means a show stopper, I'm going to stay with maildir, > > but it woud be nice to be able to improve it a bit. > > I'd recommend using a "maildir browser" which knows how to interpret the > information you're looking for (and which mutt is very good at). > ?? I'm a bit lost here, you recommend a "maildir browser" and say "... which mutt is very good at", so is mutt a maildir browser? -- Chris Green
