On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MC> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Vadim Zeitlin wrote: MC> > But MH is the only format among those supported by c-client (except MC> > support for it is so poor that it is unusable in practice) which supports MC> > folders having both messages and subfolders. MC> MC> No, there is also mx format. Sorry, I forgot about that one. But AFAIK it's very uncommon compared to mbox and mh. In fact, I don't know any programs using it, do you? MC> > It is also "plain text" (and MC> > so is preferrable to MBX) and vastly faster than MBOX. MC> MC> I don't think that you'll find that mh is faster than mbox in general. For a typical usage scenario it definitely is. I didn't do any hard testing but mh was certainly much faster for me than mbox for mailboxes containing from 1000 to 20000 messages. MC> Some operations (e.g. expunge) may be faster on Linux, but not operations MC> involving many messages (e.g. search). MC> MC> On UNIX (as opposed to Linux), mh is extremely slow. Traditional Unix with ufs -- maybe. But modern Unix systems (even other than Unix) have much faster filesystems. If there were any chance of you accepting patches to the mh driver, I would do some tests comparing mbox and mh on a few different systems to prove it. Regards, VZ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: http://www.washington.edu/imap/c-client-list.html ------------------------------------------------------------------
