* Alan Mackenzie <[email protected]> [2014-02-17 21:04]: > > mbox or maildir? > > mbox. I've never used maildir, but it strikes me that it would be > slower, not counting the initial 12s loading time.
I'm currently at 294000 and use Maildir, but with Dovecot/IMAP in between. It's very fast, and I've only run into two minor issues: New mail isn't reported instantly (I often have to open an unread message (since last mutt restart) to trigger new mail check), and a delay/hang for a few seconds when mutt checks for new mail (usually when I 'q' a message I've just read). Used mbox before, but apart from the corruption issues with mbox, deleting a message and rewriting the mailbox would take ages and it was hopeless to manage. I also used AOX (SQL based, IMAP interface) for a long time, but there was simply too many bugs and quirks so I had to let it go. I use screen with multiple instances of Mutt, to avoid having to change/re-open different mailboxes all the time. That also has the advantage I can just screen -r from any computer to bring up the e-mail environment. Oh, and I also have Thunderbird open on a couple of machines, in case I get a really annoying HTML mail or some weird attachments Mutt won't handle. > "Plain", indeed! I find mutt searching very sophisticated. Indeed. I wish Mutt would come in a GUI version, though, so that HTML mail etc. could be displayed properly. Or that someone made a "Mutt plugin" to Thunderbird or some other GUI e-mail client, so that you could use the same keybindings as Mutt (and use "/" to quickly find an e-mail you're looking for, instead of having to search). [email protected] wrote: > > I started to use trash as my 2nd level mailbox, because startup of mutt > > took too > > long. Now that's weird... -- Vegard Svanberg <[email protected]> [*Takapa@IRC (EFnet)]
