Rob Browning writes:
> And personally, I think I'd prefer that folder: be anchored by default,
> so that folder:work means "the top-level folder named work", but it's
> not a big deal to me as long as there's a fairly easy way to specify
> exactly what I want.
Oh, and in part, the reason why I
Austin Clements writes:
> As a consequence, all folders are subfolders of the inbox. With
> recursive search, a search for your inbox folder returns *all* of your
> messages. I wasn't trying to say that we shouldn't support recursive
> search (I'm all for flexibility), but it's a confusing
Rob Browning r...@defaultvalue.org writes:
And personally, I think I'd prefer that folder: be anchored by default,
so that folder:work means the top-level folder named work, but it's
not a big deal to me as long as there's a fairly easy way to specify
exactly what I want.
Oh, and in part,
Quoth Carl Worth on Feb 02 at 2:48 pm:
> Restricting my reply to one tiny bit of your mail:
>
> You wrote:
> > non-recursive is the only thing that makes sense for Maildir++ folders
>
> Either I'm not understanding Maildir++ folders, or I don't agree with
> you.
>
> I might have an email
Quoth Carl Worth on Feb 02 at 2:48 pm:
Restricting my reply to one tiny bit of your mail:
You wrote:
non-recursive is the only thing that makes sense for Maildir++ folders
Either I'm not understanding Maildir++ folders, or I don't agree with
you.
I might have an email archive that
