On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 03:12:56PM +0000, Jon Grant wrote: > Chris Croughton wrote on 27/01/08 13:09: > >On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:06:01PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote: > >>On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 22:10 +0000, Jon Grant wrote: > >>>I don't think there is any noticeable difference in Thunderbird loading > >>>my mailbox or email msg which are in HTML (CPU increases in last decade > >>>eliminated any conversion time cost). Perhaps this is just mutt "not > >>>being very good"? ;) If it is, why not just swithc to a "better" client? > > > >No, I'm running mutt on my home machine, which fetches it using > >fetchmail. CPU time is not a problem, disk reading time is. > > Are you running on a 286 or so?
Did I say "CPU time is not a problem"? Oh yes, I did. > Your mailbox will most likely largely be > in RAM too. Why would it be in RAM? It often won't have been touched for hours between the last mail going into it (and that will have been an append so probably won't have read more than a few kB) and me reading it. A lot of other things will have happened since then. > These are issues for your client to deal with.. rather than the rest > of the world to optimise for you! (Hopefully I don't sound too > blunt..) Or I can just leave. Or less drastically dump all HTML messages at the server so I'll just miss people who post that way. Chris C _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
