On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:03:25AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > The problem is not the downloading of new messages, it's the time it
> > takes to synchronize all the flags. The folder I'm testing has almost
> > 150,000 messages, and it's not the biggest one, just the biggest I've
> > synced s
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 09:54:28PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> After I fetched the whole label I realized that offlineimap does also
>>> take a long long time, and is synchro
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 09:54:28PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> After I fetched the whole label I realized that offlineimap does also
>> take a long long time, and is synchronizing all the flags. It's
>> slightly faster than mbsync at do
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Gammel Holte wrote:
>
>> So at the end of the day, the real difference is that offlineimap does
>> allow me to set a maxage for the messages, while mbsync does not.
>>
>> That's why I cannot use my folders with lots of messages, and that's
>> why it takes so long t
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 09:54:28PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> After I fetched the whole label I realized that offlineimap does also
> take a long long time, and is synchronizing all the flags. It's
> slightly faster than mbsync at doing so, but that's not an issue.
Is this for the first time
> So at the end of the day, the real difference is that offlineimap does
> allow me to set a maxage for the messages, while mbsync does not.
>
> That's why I cannot use my folders with lots of messages, and that's
> why it takes so long to sync the flags.
>
I agree that a working maxage is the maj
