David Looney wrote:
Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
David Looney wrote:
I also don't want to be running my own IMAP server (don't want to have
to be dependent on network connectivity from my laptop, e.g.).
In what way does the offline mode of Thunderbird fail you?
Two independent facts. 1. I don't want to run my own IMAP server.
That's fine. Then presumably you are picking up via POP from someone
else. I'm pretty sure Thunderbird doesn't care.
However, if someone else runs the server, then your email has no
security anyhow. Furthermore, at least IMAP will encrypt it on the
wire. I don't think POP does that.
2. I
want all mail (~3.2 GB currently) to be available. I haven't tried
offline mode (1), but it seemed to me the idea was to be selective in
folders so designated (hence 2).
You can be selective. Or, you can be like me, and just grab everything.
How do you think IMAP synchronization would rank compared to rsync of
mail directories in terms of efficiency ?
Pretty much identical. Offline mode in thunderbird keeps track of what
has been downloaded and only downloads new stuff.
There might be some gain since rsync can compress, but rsync will
transfer a lot more hashing data to work out what has changed. It's
probably a wash.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
