Re: Back from near death: exhausted. Question 1
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 07:41:07 +0100, Bob Alexander <bob@ngi.it> wrote:
> For the mail please let me be more sure:
>
> The backup directory contains a Mail/Local Folders directory in which I
> see two file pairs of interest:
> keep and keep msf
> Sent and Sent msf
>
> If I rename them and place them in the current TB directory would it
> work of would I screw up the whole thing ?
It should work. The .msf versions are perhaps less important -- they
record information such as what's been read and responded to. One
thing to note: looking through a couple of my .msf files, I see that
the folder name is included at one point. You can *probably* replace
"(81=keep)" with with "(81=keep_old)" (assuming that you moved the
file "keep" to "keep_old" and "keep.msf" to "keep_old.msf"), but it's
probably better to let Thunderbird regenerate the .msf files. You
might also have to fiddle with "subscribed folders" for the relevant
account. That's something to worry about only if they don't show up
as if by magic after you've moved the backups into place.
To be perfectly safe, clone your entire TB directory before changing
anything, so that you can revert if necessary. You should also do
this without downloading any new mail, or even fetching from a local
spool. If something get screwed up, you don't want to lose anything.
I'd suggest going into offline mode and disabling any local
auto-fetching.
> I also see an ImapMail/imap.ngi.it. I would not need those since they
> should refelct what is ket on the IMAP host. Correct ?
That should be the case, unless you've got some local-only folders.
(You'll have to go back into online mode, of course.)
> In a perfect world I would also like to retrieve the filterrules from both.
I can't say for certain, since I don't use TB's filtering (I just run
procmail on the IMAP server), but it appears that training.dat has all
of the filtering info. Again, copying this over *might* be all you
need to do.
--
Michael A. Marsh
http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh
Reply to: