Brett Coon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 20 Jun 2000:
Hmm, to the extent that MH format is like Maildir, my experience
is contrary to your claim that saving changes is faster in a
one-message-per-file format. I found that closing mutt took
several times longer with MH than
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:01:42 +0300, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mikko_H=E4nninen?= wrote:
Brett Coon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 19 Jun 2000:
2. The feature I *really* want in a mailtool is the ability to
(conveniently) put various attributes on messages, such as
"answer within 1 week",
Brett --
...and then Brett Coon said...
%
% So, it sounds like I could define my own set of fields and flags
% for X-Label, create some mutt macros to allow me to manipulate
...
% or "reply in N days", it should be a simple task to create a perl
% script to scan the X-Label headers for
Gerhard den Hollander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 19 Jun 2000:
Speaking of which,
how can I get my hands on the latest dev ?
There's just a new snapshot out on the ftp site (1.3.4).
If you want to live with the CVS, then read the info in
doc/devel-notes.txt.
Regards,
Mikko
--
// Mikko
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:59:23 +0200, Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
I've converted my mailboxes to maildir once, it turned out to be
slower than mbox, so I converted back to mbox now. Dunno about MH, but
I'm guessing it's about the same speed as maildir since it resembles
maildir.
are your
Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
* clemensF [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 07:49:56PM +0200)
Ronny Haryanto:
I've converted my mailboxes to maildir once, it turned out to be
slower than mbox, so I converted back to mbox now. Dunno about MH, but
I'm guessing it's about the same
Brett Coon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 20 Jun 2000:
So, in summary, MH format is slw in mutt. NFS makes it far
slower, no doubt due to NFS write behavior,
You could try also Maildir. It's NFS safe (no locking needed!), and
it might (ought to!) give you a better performance on
On 2000.06.20, in [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"clemensF" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so, why in the world would one want to leave mh for mutt?
Are you asking why in the world would one want to leave:
next
spacespacespacenext
comp
...
send
spacespacenext
spacespacenext
spacespacespacespacenext
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:07:00 +0200, clemensF wrote:
well, i',m on the verge of converting to [nx]mh. but i stick to the
rules, i.e. i will answer each message to me in due time, so i can't
keep n*1000 messages, a few dozen are the utmost horror to me.
so, why in the world would one want to
2000-06-21-01:17:34 Ronny Haryanto:
I'm still wondering why it's slower though (in general), maybe
because it fopen() more times than mbox? The mailbox is on ext2fs
if that makes any difference.
Ext2 is a nice quick FS, with many great features. One of my
favourites.
For any size mailbox,
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:33:31 EDT, Bennett Todd wrote:
Back to our muttons, the above performance discussion focused on
opening the folder. Once it's open, mutt has built an in-memory data
structure describing the messages, and either their offsets in the
mbox file, or the filenames where they
I'm currently an MH/exmh user, and I'm considering the switch to
mutt.I have tried it out briefly, and browsed the
documentation, so hopefully the following questions aren't too
obvious.
1. Folder changes are really slow. My MH folders (directories)
have thousands of
Brett Coon:
1. Folder changes are really slow. My MH folders (directories)
have thousands of messages, which undoubtedly is at least
part of the problem. Would it be faster if I stored messages
in mbox format? Is there anything else I can do to speed
it up other than
On 19-Jun-2000, clemensF wrote:
Brett Coon:
1. Folder changes are really slow. My MH folders (directories)
have thousands of messages, which undoubtedly is at least
part of the problem. Would it be faster if I stored messages
in mbox format? Is there anything else I can
Brett Coon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 19 Jun 2000:
2. The feature I *really* want in a mailtool is the ability to
(conveniently) put various attributes on messages, such as
"answer within 1 week", "delete after 2 weeks", etc, and
have the mailtool act accordingly on messages
Hi, folks --
...and then Mikko Hänninen said...
% Brett Coon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 19 Jun 2000:
% 2. The feature I *really* want in a mailtool is the ability to
% (conveniently) put various attributes on messages, such as
% "answer within 1 week", "delete after 2 weeks",
David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 19 Jun 2000:
Any way to put the X-Label: contents into $index_format?
I think so. I'm not sure though, it's awhile since it was discussed and
I'm not running the latest dev so I can't test it out or check the docs.
Mikko
--
// Mikko Hänninen, aka.
Ronny Haryanto:
I've converted my mailboxes to maildir once, it turned out to be
slower than mbox, so I converted back to mbox now. Dunno about MH, but
I'm guessing it's about the same speed as maildir since it resembles
maildir.
are your files on a network?
clemens
On 2000.06.19, in [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"David T-G" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any way to put the X-Label: contents into $index_format?
My index_format has: "%?y?[%y] ?". From the docs:
The ``X-Label:'' header field can be used to further identify mailing
lists or list subject matter
On 2000.06.19, in [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"David Champion" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2000.06.19, in [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"David T-G" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any way to put the X-Label: contents into $index_format?
My index_format has: "%?y?[%y] ?". From the docs:
...
20 matches
Mail list logo
