The evidence I have for this is a bit "vague" being more of an
impression that processing is faster, but it seems that evo runs one
filter on a message, then the next, and so on. If you can almalgamate
rules that do similar functions (i.e., copy messages to the same
directory) into one compound ru
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 09:06 +0800, W.Kenworthy wrote:
> 3. use a compound filter rather than separate ones (this assumes there
> is less overhead doing this - subjectively it does seem quicker)
Thanks for the tips. The above one is the only one I don't really
understand, can you elaborate a bit?
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 07:25 -0400, fire-eyes wrote:
> I am using evolution 2.2.3. The speed of the filtering is atrocious. For
> example, this morning I had 42 new messages, and it took 3 minutes 50
> seconds to get it done, an dmove it into the appropriate folders.
I don't know about you, I use t
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 09:06 +0800, W.Kenworthy wrote:
> Not a real solution if you dont have your own mail server, but I moved
> the spam and filtering to spamassassin/procmail/amavis etc onto my own
> imap email server and turned off all filtering on that account. Now its
> not a problem for the
Not a real solution if you dont have your own mail server, but I moved
the spam and filtering to spamassassin/procmail/amavis etc onto my own
imap email server and turned off all filtering on that account. Now its
not a problem for the main account. An interesting aside is it seems to
take as lon
I have posted about this before, with no real solution, figured i'd
throw it out again see what happens.
I am using evolution 2.2.3. The speed of the filtering is atrocious. For
example, this morning I had 42 new messages, and it took 3 minutes 50
seconds to get it done, an dmove it into the appro
6 matches
Mail list logo
