On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 18:29 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 22:13 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 10:25 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 17:12 +0200, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> > > > tir, 11.05.2004 kl. 18.03 skrev Jeffrey Stedfast:
> > [snip]
> > > > more economical clients (Kmail for a start).
> > > In what way? Our only overhead is indexes and summary files which
> > > are a tiny fraction of the actual message content.
> >
> > Well, I wouldn't go so far as say "tiny". 20-30% is my experience
> > with IMAP-stored email,
> > and 20-90% overhead on .evolution/mail/local email.
> 90% overhead?
>
> Huh. Please explain.
>
> I'm lucky to get 5% for local mail and much less than that for imap
> email.
>
> > I must say, though, that it seems better in 1.5 than it did in
> > 1.[0-4].
> This is rubbish. The files have got bigger in 1.5, although by a
> miniscule amount. But they are definitely not smaller.
Since I don't store my mail locally, anymore, and use 1.5, I
can't give you any proof on those scores, but I can tell you
about Evo 1.5 and Courier-IMAP:
The IMAP data:
$ du -s -h -k Maildir
153756 Maildir
The Evo 1.5.7 cache:
$ du -s -h -k .evolution/mail/imap/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
50304 .evolution/mail/imap/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
32.7% overhead
--
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
