* On Thursday 06 January 2005 06:53, Maarten wrote:
> 110k ? W o w. I have nowhere near that big folders, Mine are at
> most between 10k and 20k messages. When they grow beyond that, I
> usually move them away to an archive subfolder and make a new empty
> folder instead.
That's exactly the way I handle my mail, too. I always wanted to script
the archiving proccess somehow, but didn't find the time yet.
> So how slow are we talking about ?
Just unusable. You definitely don't want to work with such a folder. I
don't remember how long exactly it took the clients to sync that
folder, but it must have been something between 5 and 20 minutes, the
first time for KMail, the last one for mutt, thunderbird beeing closer
to KMail thant to mutt.
> Is there something amiss here or is this supposed to take several
> minutes ?
Hm, folders of 10k+ messages aren't handled really fast, but it don't
takes several minutes here, I'd guess about 20-30 seconds for such a
folder, but of course this also depends on the client's and server's
available resources.
> Else, I'm reasonably sure that what bites me specifically, is that I
> tend to read my mail on three systems. Once I launch my MUA on an
> other system, Kmail sees its cache (or index?) is stale, and starts
> retrieving it from scratch. I get the distinct impression it really
> start from scratch; it doesn't try to somehow add the odd-hundred new
> messages, but retrieves all of the old ones as well, is my
> impression.
Hm, maybe that's a point I'm missing. As stated above, I archive my
mails frequently to avoid folders with more than 3k messages. Up to
this size, I can't notice any slow downs that really hurt me (of course
theres a noticeable lag), but usually I just use one client on one box
at the same time.
> Um, yes. Filtering especially, but also searching. I always hate it
> when I need to look up some really old useful info or something. I
> have three recourses; copy an imap folder to a local folder and then
> search locally, login on my mailserver and use grep to find my
> message, or else launch thunderbird to do it. Obviously, thunderbird
> wins here, even though I grep a lot :-)
Isn't it impressive how IMAP made life easier? ;-)
> Weird, eh. I'm used to commandline tools for most everything I do,
> yet I have a problem with TB's 'look'. Sometimes I do not understand
> myself, really. ;-|
Oh, I can understand that. Most of the time I'm inside my "konsole" to
deal with screen, irssi, slrn and vim, but I can spend hours to
configure my desktop's look (and I do so frequently). ;-)
> But you say there are plugins for that ? Hm, must check those out
> then...
At least I found one plugin for coloring different quote levels, which
thunderbird isn't (or wasn't?) able to do.
Regards,
Jens
--
Well, I think Perl should run faster than C. :-)
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
[email protected] mailing list
