Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #230989 > unrolled thread

Archivemail

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Archivemail Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 00:30 +0100
    Re: Archivemail Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-01-23 00:40 +0100
      Re: Archivemail Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 01:20 +0100
        Re: Archivemail Jochen Spieker <ml@well-adjusted.de> - 2021-01-24 00:20 +0100
          Re: Archivemail Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2021-01-24 01:40 +0100
            Re: Archivemail Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2021-01-24 10:00 +0100
              Re: Archivemail Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2021-01-24 10:40 +0100
                Re: Archivemail Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2021-01-25 00:50 +0100
                  Re: Archivemail Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2021-01-25 06:50 +0100
            Re: Archivemail Jochen Spieker <ml@well-adjusted.de> - 2021-01-24 21:50 +0100
              Re: Archivemail Keith Bainbridge <ke1thozgroups@gmx.com> - 2021-01-25 03:30 +0100
                Re: Archivemail Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-01-25 04:30 +0100
                Re: Archivemail Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-01-25 07:30 +0100
                  Re: Archivemail Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-01-25 07:50 +0100
                  Re: Archivemail Keith Bainbridge <ke1thozgroups@gmx.com> - 2021-01-25 12:50 +0100
                    Re: Archivemail Jochen Spieker <ml@well-adjusted.de> - 2021-01-25 21:50 +0100
    Re: Archivemail Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> - 2021-01-25 22:00 +0100

#230989 — Archivemail

Anyone know what happened to archivemail in Debian?

packages.debian.org shows it was in Jessie, Stretch and Buster, but it 
is in neither sid nor Bullseye which presumably means it has been 
dropped. Anyone know why?

bugs.debian.org doesn't show any bugs against it and google is coming up 
short too.

Thanks

Mark

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#230993

On Fri 22 Jan 2021 at 23:22:19 +0000, Mark Fletcher wrote:

> Anyone know what happened to archivemail in Debian?
> 
> packages.debian.org shows it was in Jessie, Stretch and Buster, but it 
> is in neither sid nor Bullseye which presumably means it has been 
> dropped. Anyone know why?
> 
> bugs.debian.org doesn't show any bugs against it and google is coming up 
> short too.

It's always a good idea to look at "Developer Information" on a
package page.

Python2? Python3?

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#230997

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 11:33:13PM +0000, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 22 Jan 2021 at 23:22:19 +0000, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> 
> > Anyone know what happened to archivemail in Debian?
> > 
> > packages.debian.org shows it was in Jessie, Stretch and Buster, but it 
> > is in neither sid nor Bullseye which presumably means it has been 
> > dropped. Anyone know why?
> > 
> > bugs.debian.org doesn't show any bugs against it and google is coming up 
> > short too.
> 
> It's always a good idea to look at "Developer Information" on a
> package page.
> 
> Python2? Python3?
> 

OK deciphering the above for anyone who might follow after me: 
archivemail is dependent on Python2 which, it appears, is getting 
removed from bullseye (although as of right now it's not gone yet, it's 
installed on my system and I didn't ask for it, so something is clearly 
still dependent on it)

So what alternatives would people recommend? My use case is for deleting 
messages to a local copy of this mailing list after they're a month old, 
which I have previously pulled down to my local user ID from my gmail 
account with fetchmail.

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231035

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Mark Fletcher:
> 
> OK deciphering the above for anyone who might follow after me: 
> archivemail is dependent on Python2 which, it appears, is getting 
> removed from bullseye (although as of right now it's not gone yet, it's 
> installed on my system and I didn't ask for it, so something is clearly 
> still dependent on it)

Thank you for pointing out that archivemail will be gone soon. Since I
am using it as well, I took a quick look at it ("how hard can it be??")
and tried a quick conversion to Python3:
https://github.com/solexx/archivemail

Luckily there is a test suite and only about two thirds of the tests are
failing, otherwise I might have thought it should work. ;-)

The main problem is that one has to replace a few modules/functions,
mostly the long-obsolete rfc822. I think I can get away with throwing
away the get_filename function completely, which was a little
problematic due to the dependencies. I guess I have only "solved" the
easy problems for now, but I still think the conversion should be
doable.

I have no idea whether or when I will be able to finish this, because I
am severly time-constrained due to the pandemic (daycare in the morning,
regular work in the afternoon until late at night). I am also aware that
it is probably too late for bullseye, but archivemail can be dropped to
~/bin/ easily.

But well, first me or somebody else has to fix those failing tests.

J.
-- 
If all my friends had Playstations I would buy a Nintendo to prove my
individuality.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
                 <http://archive.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231038

On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:17:55AM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Thank you for pointing out that archivemail will be gone soon. Since I
> am using it as well, I took a quick look at it ("how hard can it be??")
> and tried a quick conversion to Python3:
> https://github.com/solexx/archivemail
> 
> Luckily there is a test suite and only about two thirds of the tests are
> failing, otherwise I might have thought it should work. ;-)
> 
> The main problem is that one has to replace a few modules/functions,
> mostly the long-obsolete rfc822. I think I can get away with throwing
> away the get_filename function completely, which was a little
> problematic due to the dependencies. I guess I have only "solved" the
> easy problems for now, but I still think the conversion should be
> doable.

On digging around prompted by Brian's earlier input I found a 
conversation between a couple of other people and they seemed to start 
that process and then give up on the basis that it was a lot harder than 
they thought...

I'm probably going to just write a python3 script of my own to handle my 
use-case, which is just to sift through /var/mail/<user> to delete mails 
older than a month. I've found the python3 "mailbox" library which 
includes support for mbox type mail files, which is what I think 
/var/mail/<user> is. Looking at the API it doesn't look that hard, and I 
have to assume the complexity of porting archivemail comes either from 
the paradigm it operates in or from functionality it provides other than 
simply deleting old mail.

On my travels today I discovered mutt can do the job I want for me with 
a simple command, but I don't want to have to run mutt to do it -- I'm 
"away" for long periods and I want the mail box size to stay under 
control while I'm not paying attention, accepting that means I will 
never read some mail that goes to the mailing list. Hence I want an 
automated solution that happens whether I am paying attention or not.

> 
> I have no idea whether or when I will be able to finish this, because I
> am severly time-constrained due to the pandemic (daycare in the morning,
> regular work in the afternoon until late at night). I am also aware that
> it is probably too late for bullseye, but archivemail can be dropped to
> ~/bin/ easily.
> 
> But well, first me or somebody else has to fix those failing tests.
> 

Despite my decision to have a crack at writing something local for my 
own usecase, I do think it would be good if archivemail made a comeback, 
so I wish you well in that endeavour. I'd offer to help test but as I've 
illustrated, my usecase is very simple...

(still, happy to test that usecase if it would be helpful)

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231040

On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 00:31 +0000, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> I'm probably going to just write a python3 script of my own to handle my 
> use-case, which is just to sift through /var/mail/<user> to delete mails 
> older than a month.

Erm, what am I missing, couldn't you do that with a crontab line
something like..

 0 1    *   *   *   find /var/mail/ -type f -mtime +30 -delete

Or with an -exec option to move and compress them for archival
purposes.

-- 
Tixy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231041

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

* 2021-01-24 08:53:22+0000, tixy@yxit.co.uk wrote:

> On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 00:31 +0000, Mark Fletcher wrote:
>> I'm probably going to just write a python3 script of my own to handle my 
>> use-case, which is just to sift through /var/mail/<user> to delete mails 
>> older than a month.
>
> Erm, what am I missing, couldn't you do that with a crontab line
> something like..
>
>  0 1    *   *   *   find /var/mail/ -type f -mtime +30 -delete

File /var/mail/$USER is an mbox file which contains several email
messages. Your suggestion (find [...] -delete) may work with maildir
email storage which has one file per message.

-- 
/// Teemu Likonen - .-.. https://www.iki.fi/tlikonen/
// OpenPGP: 4E1055DC84E9DFF613D78557719D69D324539450

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231059

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:24:39 +0200
Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> wrote:

> > Erm, what am I missing, couldn't you do that with a crontab line
> > something like..
> >
> >  0 1    *   *   *   find /var/mail/ -type f -mtime +30 -delete  
> 
> File /var/mail/$USER is an mbox file which contains several email
> messages. Your suggestion (find [...] -delete) may work with maildir
> email storage which has one file per message.

Take a look at the mboxgrep package.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231064

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

* 2021-01-24 16:40:45-0700, Charles Curley wrote:

> Take a look at the mboxgrep package.

Maybe you should explain how it helps the original poster and his
problem. See:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2021/01/msg00876.html

-- 
/// Teemu Likonen - .-.. https://www.iki.fi/tlikonen/
// OpenPGP: 4E1055DC84E9DFF613D78557719D69D324539450

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231053

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Mark Fletcher:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:17:55AM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>> 
>> The main problem is that one has to replace a few modules/functions,
>> mostly the long-obsolete rfc822. I think I can get away with throwing
>> away the get_filename function completely, which was a little
>> problematic due to the dependencies. I guess I have only "solved" the
>> easy problems for now, but I still think the conversion should be
>> doable.
> 
> On digging around prompted by Brian's earlier input I found a 
> conversation between a couple of other people and they seemed to start 
> that process and then give up on the basis that it was a lot harder than 
> they thought...

:-)

Yes, I was hoping that one could more or less blindly do a few simple
substitutions and get that code running again. But I guess if it was
that easy, somebody else would have already done that.

> I'm probably going to just write a python3 script of my own to handle my 
> use-case, which is just to sift through /var/mail/<user> to delete mails 
> older than a month. I've found the python3 "mailbox" library which 
> includes support for mbox type mail files,

Yes, I am trying to use that for archivemail as well.

> which is what I think /var/mail/<user> is.  

Yes, as others have already confirmed, those mailboxes are simple
mboxes.

> Looking at the API it doesn't look that hard, and I 
> have to assume the complexity of porting archivemail comes either from 
> the paradigm it operates in or from functionality it provides other than 
> simply deleting old mail.

The problem is mostly that it was written for Python 2.3 using
deprecated modules that are not available anymore for Python3. But, I
have to day, email.utils and friend do provide a lot of drop-in
replacements for stuff from the old rfc822 module, at least according to
the docstrings.

> On my travels today I discovered mutt can do the job I want for me with 
> a simple command, but I don't want to have to run mutt to do it

I was already wondering whether I should suggest this, but I assumed
that the requirement for interaction makes this a bad approach. It is
probably even possible to script this using mutt, but that would be a
hackish approach.

>> But well, first me or somebody else has to fix those failing tests.
>> 
> 
> Despite my decision to have a crack at writing something local for my 
> own usecase, I do think it would be good if archivemail made a comeback, 
> so I wish you well in that endeavour. I'd offer to help test but as I've 
> illustrated, my usecase is very simple...
> 
> (still, happy to test that usecase if it would be helpful)

I might get back to you about this, if I don't lose interest very
quickly.

Is anybody still using MH mailboxes?

J.
-- 
If I had to live on a desert island I would take a mobile phone,
preferably a Nokia 8810.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
                 <http://archive.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231061

On 25/1/21 7:41 am, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Is anybody still using MH mailboxes?

I think that means each mail in its own file? If so YES, because if I
lose a file, I lose only 1 email not thousands.

Also, progressive back-ups get very large very quickly using everything
in one file.


I also have in mind that every byte is 8 switches (or is it more with
modern file systems?).  It only takes 1 switch to fail to loose the
file. How many switches in a 1MB file - around 8,096. How many switches
on my 700GB data partition?  You get the drift.   And I have had files
simply disappear; several over the last year

Seriously, am I a pessimist? Or am I just taking the maxim about 2 kinds
of drives - the ones that have failed and the drives that are going to
fail - too seriously.


--
Keith Bainbridge

ke1thozgroups@gmx.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231063

> Also, progressive back-ups get very large very quickly using everything
> in one file.

FWIW tools like `bup` can do incremental backups of "mailbox" files efficiently.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231070

Keith Bainbridge <ke1thozgroups@gmx.com> writes:

> On 25/1/21 7:41 am, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>> Is anybody still using MH mailboxes?
>
> I think that means each mail in its own file? If so YES, because if I
> lose a file, I lose only 1 email not thousands.

MH is a mail format where each mail is stored in separate file,
yes. Maildir is another and I think it's more common. archivemail
supports both of these. Mutt too. I don't know if MH is supported by
common MDAs though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231072

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Lu, 25 ian 21, 08:23:01, Anssi Saari wrote:
> Keith Bainbridge <ke1thozgroups@gmx.com> writes:
> 
> > On 25/1/21 7:41 am, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> >> Is anybody still using MH mailboxes?
> >
> > I think that means each mail in its own file? If so YES, because if I
> > lose a file, I lose only 1 email not thousands.
> 
> MH is a mail format where each mail is stored in separate file,
> yes. Maildir is another and I think it's more common. archivemail
> supports both of these. Mutt too. I don't know if MH is supported by
> common MDAs though.
 
mutt and neomutt, of course ;)

Some while ago MH was the default in Claws Mail (and Sylpheed probably), 
while the Maildir plugin was considered buggy and not recommended.

Might have been one of the reasons to look for alternatives at the time.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231088

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:23:01 +0200
Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> wrote:

> Keith Bainbridge <ke1thozgroups@gmx.com> writes:
>
> > On 25/1/21 7:41 am, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> >> Is anybody still using MH mailboxes?
> >
> > I think that means each mail in its own file? If so YES, because if
> > I lose a file, I lose only 1 email not thousands.
>
> MH is a mail format where each mail is stored in separate file,
> yes. Maildir is another and I think it's more common. archivemail
> supports both of these. Mutt too. I don't know if MH is supported by
> common MDAs though.
>

Thanks for the clarification.

To answer the question about MH, yes. It is the default for Sylpheed &
Claws.

--

Keith Bainbridge
<ke1thozgroups@gmx.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231142

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Keith Bainbridge:
> 
> To answer the question about MH, yes. It is the default for Sylpheed &
> Claws.

Thanks!

J.
-- 
I eat meat and am concerned about bugs which are resistant to
antibiotics.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
                 <http://archive.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231144

Hallo,
* Mark Fletcher [Fri, Jan 22 2021, 11:22:19PM]:
> Anyone know what happened to archivemail in Debian?
>
> packages.debian.org shows it was in Jessie, Stretch and Buster, but it
> is in neither sid nor Bullseye which presumably means it has been
> dropped. Anyone know why?
>
> bugs.debian.org doesn't show any bugs against it and google is coming up
> short too.

It's gone along with the rest of the Python2 eco system. In the meantime
I have extended my own alternative (mail-expire package) to do something
similar, at least for the usecases I care about. Maybe it's sufficient
for you too, feel free to report bugs or wishes.

Best regards,
Eduard.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web