[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on > 03/10/03 > at 11:44 PM, David Ehle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >>On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > >>> Mitch \(WebCob\) writes: >>> >>> > To make a statement like this one would assume there is such a survey? Or is >>> > it an anecdotal assumption. I'm not arguing, as I have no basis to, but I >>> > would say that dismissing the larger volume users concerns PREVENTS courier >>> >>> "Larger volume users" means, in most cases, users with many, average sized >>> mailboxes, not a few humongous mailboxes. >>> >>Maybe I'm weird but I tend to archive all my mailing lists so I can >>search locally before making a public fool of myself. This means I have >>4 or 5 different folders of 7-8 K messages.
Let me add a 'me, too' here. If a folder reaches the 10k mark, I create a subfolder called 'old' and move most of the messages into that one - kind of an archive. > Neither weird nor unusual practice. But *most* folks these days are doing > this on their desktops - not on a shared server. Actually, I try to use IMAP in every company that I work for and migrate the small nets of friends to IMAP, because it's so much easier to have a centralized mailstore that can be backed up than to have the users store their mail on their desktops. Just think of corrupted Outlook mailboxes, whining users that lost their *complete* mails because of a dieing hardisk (what users make a backup of their harddisk?), all the hassle when you have to move the mails from one desktop machine to a new one... It's getting off topic now. Cheers, Juri ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
