On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 16:35, Dan Winship wrote: > On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 11:14, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 16:06, Dan Winship wrote: > > > > If the server can sort the mail for you (or thread -- that's just a > > > > special case of sorting), then it means you don't have to have headers > > > > of all the mail in the folder before you can display anything. You can > > > > dramatically reduce network load, and improve responsiveness > > > > > > Well, you still need to download all of the headers that you're going to > > > *display*. Meaning it's still O(n) on the size of your mailbox, just > > > with a different constant. > > > > Er. the number of headers you're going to display is O(n) of the size of > > the index window, not the size of the mailbox. > > > > That's about ten messages, not the 3000-odd in the mailbox I may be > > looking at. > > So, first off, unless you get 3000 new messages and delete all of them > every day, the Evolution way would result in less total network traffic > than the Pine way, which has to keep redownloading all that information > every single time you look at your mail.
Pine isn't ideal either. The best solution is a combination of the two -- you do local caching but you don't insist on having a cache of _everything_ before you display _anything_. -- dwmw2 _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
