On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 09:31:26 +0000 Payal Rathod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Courier-IMAP has a lower memory footprint than Binc IMAP. But both > > footprints are low. > > Any particular reason other that "setting up is easy" that I would want > to use bincimap? I always love trying new things. It's way much faster on mailboxes with many messages in it than courier... by "way much" I mean: courier 1 min, bincimap 10sec - approx. :) I have some rather superlarge mailboxes like the lkml of one year, containing ~ 50.000 messages. With courier that mb got unusable at ~ 10k messages (took longer than 2 minutes to select the mailbox -> connection timeout *g*), with binc I can still use it now - it's selected in 10-15 secs. Ah well, and there's also no such support on courier like Andreas gives for binc ;-) > > The client should be able to compensate for this. We use the latest > > Squirrelmail and don't see any performance problems. But the system we're > > running doesn't have many users. > > How about telling me, maybe offlist, how to get squirrelmail with > bincimap ... I mean the "." and "/" thing. Try a cvs-checkout of squirrel, I've read that the newest versions have improved support for bincimap, but are not yet tarballed. HTH -- Dennis Freise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key: 2DE8 CCEF 6E20 11D4 3B27 21EC B0BA 1749 D2C8 38ED Available at: http://www.final-frontier.ath.cx/?key-plain
pgpQKjG4nA87S.pgp
Description: PGP signature
