On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:46:48 +0200, Daniel Schoepe wrote:
> One problem is that maildir doesn't support tags, so we would have to
> switch to a format that does or somehow store them in the maildir, in
> which case we would also have to adapt offlineimap or a similar tool to
> sync tags as well.
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:46:48 +0200, Daniel Schoepe
daniel.scho...@googlemail.com wrote:
One problem is that maildir doesn't support tags, so we would have to
switch to a format that does or somehow store them in the maildir, in
which case we would also have to adapt offlineimap or a similar
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:22:24 +0200, Sebastian Spaeth sebast...@sspaeth.de
wrote:
Support for tags is mentioned in the RFC for IMAP, but it's optional. As
far as I know, must servers today support them though.
I can't speak for Gmail, but all major servers, ie Cyrus, Dovecot, and
even
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:31:03 +0200, Sander Boer wrote:
> If IMAP supports tags, is that not a big deal ?
> I mean, having a converging point for all tags, is that not like the holy
> grail in this field ?
One problem is that maildir doesn't support tags, so we would have to
switch to a format
Dear Sebastian,
If IMAP supports tags, is that not a big deal ?
I mean, having a converging point for all tags, is that not like the holy
grail in this field ?
Obviously, there must be a caveat, you mentioned client-support, which is
inconvenient, but of no long term consequence.
Do you know
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:22:23 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> First, it's important to understand that any friction here comes from
> Gmail exposing its tags as folders, (which in turn could be the lack of
> availability of a more tag-aware protocol than imap).
Even risking to become a bit
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:19:44 -0600, Mark Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:54:40 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins finestructure.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:21:11 -0600, Mark Anderson
> > wrote:
> > > I personally prefer --output=files remain as it was, with one file per
> > >
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:19:44 -0600, Mark Anderson ma.sk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:54:40 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:21:11 -0600, Mark Anderson ma.sk...@gmail.com
wrote:
I personally prefer --output=files remain
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:22:23 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
First, it's important to understand that any friction here comes from
Gmail exposing its tags as folders, (which in turn could be the lack of
availability of a more tag-aware protocol than imap).
Even risking to become a
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:54:40 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:21:11 -0600, Mark Anderson
> wrote:
> > I personally prefer --output=files remain as it was, with one file per
> > mail (even though I submitted the patch to change it). I suggest that
> > we could add
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:53:30 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:38:30 -0600, Mark Anderson
> wrote:
> > I had briefly considered adding another output format "file", just to get a
> > single file for each message in the db, but the file/files distinction
> > feels a bit niggling.
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:21:11 -0600, Mark Anderson wrote:
> I personally prefer --output=files remain as it was, with one file per
> mail (even though I submitted the patch to change it). I suggest that
> we could add another format to supply all files (perhaps
> --output=allfiles, or
Carl Worth writes:>
[snip]
> First, it's important to understand that any friction here comes from
> Gmail exposing its tags as folders, (which in turn could be the lack of
> availability of a more tag-aware protocol than imap).
>
I agree that this is the key issue here.
I was hoping that
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:53:30 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:38:30 -0600, Mark Anderson ma.sk...@gmail.com wrote:
I had briefly considered adding another output format file, just to get a
single file for each message in the db, but the file/files distinction
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:54:40 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:21:11 -0600, Mark Anderson ma.sk...@gmail.com wrote:
I personally prefer --output=files remain as it was, with one file per
mail (even though I submitted the patch to change
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:38:30 -0600, Mark Anderson wrote:
> I had briefly considered adding another output format "file", just to get a
> single file for each message in the db, but the file/files distinction
> feels a bit niggling. Perhaps it should be changed to "files" and
> "filelists" or
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:43:52 +0200, "Sander Boer" wrote:
>
> Carl Worth writes:>
> I was hoping that google somehow was able to expose the tags in the "All
> Mail" folder, like the headers that are gmail specific: X-pstn-nxpr and
> X-pstn-nxp (which contains a
> hash) for instance.
I don't
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:43:52 +0200, "Sander Boer" wrote:
> Carl Worth writes:>
> >
> > Hopefully it's clear enough that you could do the above in a script that
> > loops over all of your existing tags.
> >
> > And if you were doing a one-time switch from Gmail to notmuch that would
> > be all
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:43:41 +0200, Sander Boer wrote:
> For instance, is this a possibility sync gmail tags with notmuch tags ?
> As fas as I am aware Gmail exposes its tags through imap folders, I am
> not too thrilled about the mixing of paradigms (folders vs tags) and it
> would be great if
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:43:41 +0200, Sander Boer sanderb...@mauc.nl wrote:
For instance, is this a possibility sync gmail tags with notmuch tags ?
As fas as I am aware Gmail exposes its tags through imap folders, I am
not too thrilled about the mixing of paradigms (folders vs tags) and it
would
Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org writes:
[snip]
First, it's important to understand that any friction here comes from
Gmail exposing its tags as folders, (which in turn could be the lack of
availability of a more tag-aware protocol than imap).
I agree that this is the key issue here.
I was
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:43:52 +0200, Sander Boer sanb...@gmail.com wrote:
Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org writes:
Hopefully it's clear enough that you could do the above in a script that
loops over all of your existing tags.
And if you were doing a one-time switch from Gmail to notmuch
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:43:52 +0200, Sander Boer sanb...@gmail.com wrote:
Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org writes:
I was hoping that google somehow was able to expose the tags in the All
Mail folder, like the headers that are gmail specific: X-pstn-nxpr and
X-pstn-nxp (which contains a
hash)
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:38:30 -0600, Mark Anderson ma.sk...@gmail.com wrote:
I had briefly considered adding another output format file, just to get a
single file for each message in the db, but the file/files distinction
feels a bit niggling. Perhaps it should be changed to files and
Hi all,
I was wondering what a "best practice" would be in dealing with a gmail
account and notmuch ?
For instance, is this a possibility sync gmail tags with notmuch tags ?
As fas as I am aware Gmail exposes its tags through imap folders, I am
not too thrilled about the mixing of paradigms
25 matches
Mail list logo
