On Mon, 02 May 2011 at 20:52:29 +0200, Toby Cubitt wrote:
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:17:26PM +0200, Jose M Vidal wrote:
No way: just set the caching just for headers, but the response is
still very slow. Any other clue I can follow?
I use offlineimap with mutt, and found that switching to
On 05/05/11 13:43, Nick Jones wrote:
This is on an Apple MacBook Air with SSD, and mutt has been configured
with header-cacheing enabled and support for tokyo-cabinet compiled
therein.
For me this is still too slow, but I'm not sure that there's much else
that can be done to improve it.
On May 05, 2011 at 01:43 PM +0100, Nick Jones wrote:
For reference, mutt (1.5.20) on my machine currently takes 11 seconds to
open my offlineimap'd Gmail 'All Mail' folder which contains 17,418
messages. It then takes a further 6 seconds to close the mailbox, write
any changes, and then switch
My header cache (tokyo cabinet) seems to get slow on certain mailboxes
every few weeks. I just blow away that mailboxes cache and let it
rebuild and all is well again. I ALWAYS blow away the entire cache
whenever I pull a new version of mutt from mercurial and whenever tokyo
cabinet gets updated
On May 05, 2011 at 08:52 AM -0600, John J. Foster wrote:
My header cache (tokyo cabinet) seems to get slow on certain mailboxes
every few weeks. I just blow away that mailboxes cache and let it
rebuild and all is well again. I ALWAYS blow away the entire cache
whenever I pull a new version of
Forgot to mention - this is strictly an IMAP connection - no local
mailboxes
On Thu, 05 May 2011 11:12 -0400, Tim Gray lists+m...@protozoic.com
wrote:
On May 05, 2011 at 08:52 AM -0600, John J. Foster wrote:
My header cache (tokyo cabinet) seems to get slow on certain mailboxes
every few
On 03.05.11,10:21, Tim Gray wrote:
On May 03, 2011 at 08:39 AM +0200, Jostein Berntsen wrote:
I use mairix, but it seems like mu is being quite actively developed:
Yes, mu is quite actively developed. I liked it a fair amount. I
just have a feeling that notmuch has a brighter future.
I
Hi again,
Thanks for your help: I finally decided to use a database for my searches.
Just installed mairix and made a simple script: everytime I need to
search, just swich to terminal, run a script that waits for the string
I am searching, executes mairix and opens a new mutt sesion within the
new
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 09:08:36PM +0200, Jostein Berntsen wrote:
I use mairix, but it seems like mu is being quite actively
developed:
Yes, mu is quite actively developed. I liked it a fair amount. I
just have a feeling that notmuch has a brighter future.
I tested the most recent
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 10:21:10AM -0400, Tim Gray wrote:
I use mairix, but it seems like mu is being quite actively
developed:
Yes, mu is quite actively developed. I liked it a fair amount. I just
have a feeling that notmuch has a brighter future.
Does notmuch have a similar feature to
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:20:02AM -0400, Tim Gray wrote:
Can you share your config parts regarding notmuch / mutt integration?
(or do you use it via emacs?)
I don't use it via emacs. The mutt integration is very similar to what
you'd do with mairix or mu. A couple of bindings that just run
On May 06, 2011 at 05:17 AM +0200, Sebastian Tramp wrote:
This is indeed an interesting feature. Do you use it instead of lbdbq?
Maybe I'm missing something. Is it really that useful of a feature if
you already use lbdb and feed it with your outgoing mail?
One of the other things I like
On May 06, 2011 at 05:24 AM +0200, Sebastian Tramp wrote:
Does notmuch have a similar feature to mu's cfind? I did not find
it in the docu -- but the project name is policy also in terms of
documentation :-)
See my other email - I'm not exactly sure what cfind does. It's pretty
easy to
Quoting Tim Gray lists+m...@protozoic.com on Fri, May 06 00:12:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't mu and/or mairix require to use a
from: of f: tag and only match on complete addresses?
By default all matches are exact, which is nice for subject or body
searches, but not so nice for
14 matches
Mail list logo
