Tim:
That's easy: Fetch a scad of mail when you have filters set, versus
fetch a scad of mail when you don't have any filters set.
Unmolested, they romp into the inbox very quickly. When filtering
puts its fingers in, it's far worse than fetching mail over dial-up.
James Wilkinson:
That
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 22:06 +, James Wilkinson wrote:
The *right* place is on the MX, the first computer that receives the
email, which should never accept emails it thinks are spam. But it’s
not always practical for end users to insist on this.
I completely agree, and since I don't
Tim wrote:
Tim:
That's easy: Fetch a scad of mail when you have filters set, versus
fetch a scad of mail when you don't have any filters set.
Unmolested, they romp into the inbox very quickly. When filtering
puts its fingers in, it's far worse than fetching mail over dial-up.
James
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 20:19 +1030, Tim wrote:
Tim:
That's easy: Fetch a scad of mail when you have filters set, versus
fetch a scad of mail when you don't have any filters set.
Unmolested, they romp into the inbox very quickly. When filtering
puts its fingers in, it's far worse than
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 08:35 -0600, Robin Laing wrote:
Tim wrote:
Tim:
That's easy: Fetch a scad of mail when you have filters set, versus
fetch a scad of mail when you don't have any filters set.
Unmolested, they romp into the inbox very quickly. When filtering
puts its fingers in,
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 08:35 -0600, Robin Laing wrote:
Tim wrote:
I've seen a few other similar comments about the slowness of filtering
over the years.
I will second that this has been an issue for some time. I had this
issue when we moved to Exchange Server a few years ago. I
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 10:21 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Tim is not using Exchange server (at least I assume he isn't,
Correct.
given that his MUA is Tbird).
Huh?
I'm using Evolution 2.22.3.1 on Fedora 9.
I'm still using Dovecot dovecot-0.99.14-8.fc4 on Fedora Core 4 as my
IMAP
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 08:35 -0600, Robin Laing wrote:
Tim wrote:
Tim:
That's easy: Fetch a scad of mail when you have filters set, versus
fetch a scad of mail when you don't have any filters set.
Unmolested, they romp into the inbox very quickly. When filtering
puts its fingers in,
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 06:42 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 10:21 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Tim is not using Exchange server (at least I assume he isn't,
Correct.
given that his MUA is Tbird).
Huh?
I'm using Evolution 2.22.3.1 on Fedora 9.
Oops, I think I
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 16:09 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
I did this again today forgetting I had tried this once before.
Filtering is fast. What is slow is using sppamassassin to analyze the
mail. Filtering 100 messages takes about 10 seconds.
Note that SA is slow if you use remote checking (it
On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 20:53 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
I meant how do you know the time is spent filtering (rather than say
polling the server or downloading mail)?
That's easy: Fetch a scad of mail when you have filters set, versus
fetch a scad of mail when you don't have any filters
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 20:22 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 20:53 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
I meant how do you know the time is spent filtering (rather than say
polling the server or downloading mail)?
That's easy: Fetch a scad of mail when you have filters set, versus
Tim wrote:
That's easy: Fetch a scad of mail when you have filters set, versus
fetch a scad of mail when you don't have any filters set.
Unmolested, they romp into the inbox very quickly. When filtering puts
its fingers in, it's far worse than fetching mail over dial-up.
That sort of
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 22:06 +, James Wilkinson wrote:
Tim wrote:
That's easy: Fetch a scad of mail when you have filters set, versus
fetch a scad of mail when you don't have any filters set.
Unmolested, they romp into the inbox very quickly. When filtering puts
its fingers in,
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 15:41 -0700, Craig White wrote:
Many versions of evolution/Fedora ago, I stopped using junk filtering
because spamassasin was so slow and memory was a terrible issue. I
gather that the response was to implement the bogo-filter instead of
spamassassin at the evolution
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 19:09 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 15:41 -0700, Craig White wrote:
Many versions of evolution/Fedora ago, I stopped using junk filtering
because spamassasin was so slow and memory was a terrible issue. I
gather that the response was to
Patrick O'Callaghan:
Don't forget to Expunge (or Empty Trash) to make sure the space is
really freed.
Linuxguy123:
I didn't know this was necessary. Interesting.
Technically, it's necessary on many mail clients (delete flags a message
as not wanted, and actually removing it is a second
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 09:32 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I have all my emails since 2002. This isn't the first folder that
reached the 2GB limit.
I've got folders with thousands of messages going back further than
that, none of them are anywhere near that size.
Of course, if you have messages
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 01:37 +1030, Tim wrote:
Filtering is the slowest I've seen on any mail client.
How did you measure this and what did you compare it with?
poc
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Tim:
Filtering is the slowest I've seen on any mail client.
Patrick O'Callaghan:
How did you measure this and what did you compare it with?
Several minutes versus hardly noticeable seconds is easy to measure the
difference. And, Evolution since the Red Hat Linux days up to Fedora 9,
versus
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 10:17 +1030, Tim wrote:
Tim:
Filtering is the slowest I've seen on any mail client.
Patrick O'Callaghan:
How did you measure this and what did you compare it with?
Several minutes versus hardly noticeable seconds is easy to measure the
difference. And, Evolution
On Friday 13 March 2009 04:07:27 Craig White wrote:
I have to say that I am confused because I remember you saying that the
problem was with a gmail account which should have been imap and in the
imap subdirectory and not the local subdirectory.
I remember when gmail didn't support IMAP ...
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 17:22 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 12:58 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I found the problem:
evolution-mail-Message: Error occurred while existing dialogue active:
Cannot append message to mbox
file: /home/xxx/.evolution/mail/local/Inbox:
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 09:49 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 12:58 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I checked an my inbox file is 2GB in size. Evolution didn't warn me
or anything.
Ugh! Though I'm surprised that Evolution didn't get as slow as hell
with a mailfile approaching that size,
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 23:16 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 09:49 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 12:58 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I checked an my inbox file is 2GB in size. Evolution didn't warn me
or anything.
Ugh! Though I'm surprised that
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 21:07 -0700, Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 12:58 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I found the problem:
evolution-mail-Message: Error occurred while existing dialogue active:
Cannot append message to mbox
file: /home/xxx/.evolution/mail/local/Inbox: File too
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 13:14 +, Bill Crawford wrote:
On Friday 13 March 2009 04:07:27 Craig White wrote:
I have to say that I am confused because I remember you saying that the
problem was with a gmail account which should have been imap and in the
imap subdirectory and not the local
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 09:40 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
As indicated above, you have an INBOX like a cesspool and you don't
break it down into subdirectories which is really what you need to do
and not allow your INBOX or any subdirectory to get that big.
If we want to get serious about
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 08:53 -0700, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 09:40 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
As indicated above, you have an INBOX like a cesspool and you don't
break it down into subdirectories which is really what you need to do
and not allow your INBOX or any
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 10:30 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 08:53 -0700, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 09:40 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
As indicated above, you have an INBOX like a cesspool and you don't
break it down into subdirectories which is really
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 09:52 -0700, Craig White wrote:
umm...I have thousands of e-mails going back way past 2002 including all
of my 'Sent' e-mails going back until 1997. I have everything organized
and my largest folder is Sent_2008 which has 3391 e-mails in it.
:rollseyes: Good for you !
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 11:24 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
:rollseyes: Good for you ! :claps: Would you like a hero cookie with
that ?
at the point where you get into sarcasm towards someone whose intent is
to demonstrate that there are other more reliable methods to handle
e-mail is where I
2009/3/13 Craig White craigwh...@azapple.com:
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 11:24 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
:rollseyes: Good for you ! :claps: Would you like a hero cookie with
that ?
at the point where you get into sarcasm towards someone whose intent is
to demonstrate that there are other
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 09:31 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
Don't forget
to Expunge (or Empty Trash) to make sure the space is really freed.
In
fact if you aren't in the habit of doing that, just run Expunge on
your
Inbox folder and see if it reduces; it might be full of ancient
deleted
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 14:21 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 09:31 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
Don't forget
to Expunge (or Empty Trash) to make sure the space is really freed.
In
fact if you aren't in the habit of doing that, just run Expunge on
your
Inbox
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 11:25 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:37 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:15 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
snip
So either Evolution isn't downloading the emails from that account or it
is throwing them away. How do I
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 12:45 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 11:25 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:37 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:15 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
snip
So either Evolution isn't downloading the emails from
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 12:58 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I found the problem:
evolution-mail-Message: Error occurred while existing dialogue active:
Cannot append message to mbox
file: /home/xxx/.evolution/mail/local/Inbox: File too large
DB Operation ended. Time Taken : 0.167074
I checked
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 12:58 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I checked an my inbox file is 2GB in size. Evolution didn't warn me
or anything.
Ugh! Though I'm surprised that Evolution didn't get as slow as hell
with a mailfile approaching that size, before it jammed up.
--
[...@localhost ~]$ uname
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 09:49 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 12:58 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I checked an my inbox file is 2GB in size. Evolution didn't warn me
or anything.
Ugh! Though I'm surprised that Evolution didn't get as slow as hell
with a mailfile approaching that size,
I'm wondering if Evolution might be throwing out emails that it
shouldn't be.
I use Evolution in F10 to manage my emails.
I have a number of different email accounts for various purposes. I
have filters set up to sort my incoming emails into about 20 different
folders, based on the sender. If
Linuxguy123 wrote:
I'm wondering if Evolution might be throwing out emails that it
shouldn't be.
I use Evolution in F10 to manage my emails.
I have a number of different email accounts for various purposes. I
have filters set up to sort my incoming emails into about 20 different
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:15 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I'm wondering if Evolution might be throwing out emails that it
shouldn't be.
Or is it simply not showing them?
Look in the view menu, and untick any hide options, then see if that
makes any difference.
--
[...@localhost ~]$ uname -r
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:15 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I'm wondering if Evolution might be throwing out emails that it
shouldn't be.
I use Evolution in F10 to manage my emails.
I have a number of different email accounts for various purposes. I
have filters set up to sort my incoming
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:15 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I'm wondering if Evolution might be throwing out emails that it
shouldn't be.
I use Evolution in F10 to manage my emails.
I have a number of different email accounts for various purposes. I
have filters set up to sort my incoming
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 01:55 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:15 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I'm wondering if Evolution might be throwing out emails that it
shouldn't be.
Or is it simply not showing them?
Look in the view menu, and untick any hide options, then see if that
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 11:03 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:15 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I'm wondering if Evolution might be throwing out emails that it
shouldn't be.
I use Evolution in F10 to manage my emails.
I have a number of different email accounts
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Linuxguy123 wrote:
How would I verify that Evolution isn't throwing away some of my
emails ?
The simple way would be to check the emails by another means. I have seen
evolution lose and forget about large blocks of emails, but viewing them
by alternate means show that
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 11:05 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 01:55 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:15 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I'm wondering if Evolution might be throwing out emails that it
shouldn't be.
Or is it simply not showing them?
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:37 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:15 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I'm wondering if Evolution might be throwing out emails that it
shouldn't be.
I use Evolution in F10 to manage my emails.
I have a number of different email accounts for
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:37 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
The account in question is a gmail account. I logged into gmail
directly and checked and there are over a dozen emails sitting in the
account that haven't shown up in Evolution. I don't have delete once
downloaded selected in Evolution, so
On 3/10/2009 11:37 AM, Linuxguy123 wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:15 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I'm wondering if Evolution might be throwing out emails that it
shouldn't be.
I use Evolution in F10 to manage my emails.
I have a number of different email accounts for various purposes. I
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 02:33 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:37 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
The account in question is a gmail account. I logged into gmail
directly and checked and there are over a dozen emails sitting in the
account that haven't shown up in Evolution. I don't have
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 12:33 -0400, David wrote:
On 3/10/2009 11:37 AM, Linuxguy123 wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:15 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I'm wondering if Evolution might be throwing out emails that it
shouldn't be.
I use Evolution in F10 to manage my emails.
I have a number
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 12:33 -0400, David wrote:
A 'feature' of Gmail is that it does not 'return' to you *from* a
mailing list a copy of a post you make *to* a mailing list.
Great feature? I think not.
It's very easy to set up a vfolder in Evo to show messages both to and
from the list. I do
2009/3/10 David dgbo...@comcast.net:
A 'feature' of Gmail is that it does not 'return' to you *from* a
mailing list a copy of a post you make *to* a mailing list.
Great feature? I think not.
It's because it considers the incoming message to be the same as the
one already in your Sent folder
56 matches
Mail list logo
