On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 12:43:33PM +0100, Rafal Czlonka wrote:
Andrey Zhidenkov wrote:
Thank you. One more question: can I convert my mbox folder to maildir
format?
Yes you can.
I can suppose that I can move all my mail into another folder, configure
procmail
to work with maildir
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 01:16:20PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
* Andrey Zhidenkov wrote:
I'm using mutt about 6 month. For this time I have about 5000 messages
in my mbox folder. What format is preffered for using with many
messages? Is Maildir faster? I read in this mailing list that
Chris Bannister wrote:
You can convert your mbox to maildir first. The only difference between
mbox and maildir in procmail is / at the end of the mailbox name.
No, that is not the only difference. Maildir doesn't require locking.
Yes, I know that, thank you. Still, in procmail, the only
++ 10/05/09 17:26 +0100 - Rafal Czlonka:
Chris Bannister wrote:
You can convert your mbox to maildir first. The only difference between
mbox and maildir in procmail is / at the end of the mailbox name.
No, that is not the only difference. Maildir doesn't require locking.
Yes, I know
I'm using mutt about 6 month. For this time I have about 5000 messages in my
mbox
folder. What format is preffered for using with many messages? Is Maildir
faster? I read
in this mailing list that someone stores his mail in the folder, organized by
years
and month. I think that is very good
Hi,
* Andrey Zhidenkov wrote:
I'm using mutt about 6 month. For this time I have about 5000 messages
in my mbox folder. What format is preffered for using with many
messages? Is Maildir faster? I read in this mailing list that someone
stores his mail in the folder, organized by years and
I convert my mbox folder to maildir format?
I can suppose that I can move all my mail into another folder, configure
procmail
to work with maildir and then run procmail again. Is that right solution?
Rocco
Andrey Zhidenkov wrote:
Thank you. One more question: can I convert my mbox folder to maildir format?
Yes you can.
I can suppose that I can move all my mail into another folder, configure
procmail
to work with maildir and then run procmail again. Is that right solution?
You can convert
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 10:26:57AM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
On 2007-02-07 09:20:51 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can solve the problem by switching to maildir, however I'd
prefer not to keep my saved/archived mail in maildir format, is
it possible (or sensible) to mix the two
This follows on from my recent question about mutt not recognising new
mail which turned out to be due to the 'noatime' setting on the disk
drives in question.
I can solve the problem by switching to maildir, however I'd prefer
not to keep my saved/archived mail in maildir format, is it possible
On 2007-02-07 09:20:51 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can solve the problem by switching to maildir, however I'd
prefer not to keep my saved/archived mail in maildir format, is
it possible (or sensible) to mix the two formats?
Yes. I use maildir for my inbox (since it's the format that
* On 2002.06.08, in 20020608212345.GB4832@sumida,
* Kevin Coyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't want to start a religious war, but is there consensus opinion
as to whether mbox or Maildir is better? I know mutt supports both
automatically, so it's probably a bit of a mute question
--G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
* Kevin Coyner [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2002-06-08 23:34 -0400:
=20
I don't want to start a religious war, but is there consensus opinion
as to whether mbox
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 05:23:45PM -0400, Kevin Coyner wrote:
I don't want to start a religious war, but is there consensus opinion
as to whether mbox or Maildir is better? I know mutt supports both
automatically, so it's probably a bit of a mute question, but mutt
also gives you
I don't want to start a religious war, but is there consensus opinion
as to whether mbox or Maildir is better? I know mutt supports both
automatically, so it's probably a bit of a mute question, but mutt
also gives you the option of specifying which format new folders are
set up in, so I
Hi,
* Kevin Coyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-06-08 23:23]:
I don't want to start a religious war, but is there consensus opinion
as to whether mbox or Maildir is better? I know mutt supports both
automatically, so it's probably a bit of a mute question, but mutt
also gives you the option
I have set upp Mutt (current) on a Debian system using maildirs. But
when quitting i get a query for
Move read messages to /home/j2/mbox? ([no]/yes):
And i cant seem to figure out what the option would be to squelch this
query or default it to no with no questions asked?
I am sure this is a
Jan Johansson wrote:
Move read messages to /home/j2/mbox? ([no]/yes):
And i cant seem to figure out what the option would be to squelch this
query or default it to no with no questions asked?
set move=no
I am sure this is a PAQ / FAQ but i cant find anuything useful in the
archives.
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, David Clarke wrote:
Don't know why but for me there isn't much of a difference between them,
everyone else seems to be getting a big difference. I was however
I just noticed the partition I was testing on was actually ext3, which
probably explains my results.
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Alexander Skwar wrote:
FWIW, I just did some testing using mutt 1.3.25i on my Athlon 800 MHz,
786 MB RAM, and a IBM DDRS-39130W SCSI UW hard drive running reiserfs.
The Maildir/mbox I tested, had 84.533 messages and about 321 MB.
Opening the mbox beast took 2:53 minutes
Matthew --
...and then Matthew D. Fuller said...
%
% On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:26:55PM -0500 I heard the voice of
% Derek D. Martin, and lo! it spake thus:
%
% In which case I would ask, dude, why? I thought my counterpart at
% work was a pack rat... ;-)
%
% Hmmm
% Well, my current
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 09:39:52PM -0500, Derek D. Martin wrote:
But how does it compare to mbox on the same FS? I'll bet it's still
significantly slower.
opening times might be ... but think about updating times and the
no locking needed goodies :-)
--
Christian Ordig
Germany
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 06:45:54PM -0800 I heard the voice of
Michael Elkins, and lo! it spake thus:
Mutt attempts to compensate for this by using quoted-printable encoding when
it detects things that might break a signature, thus escaping the problem.
But yes, mbox format is more
* Derek D. Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
At some point hitherto, Will Yardley hath spake thusly:
our office mail machine is (unfortunately) linux with ext2, and i
can attest to the fact that Maildir is pretty slow on ext2.
And most other filesystems... Try it on FAT. =8^)
I think
At some point hitherto, Thomas Hurst hath spake thusly:
* Derek D. Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
At some point hitherto, Will Yardley hath spake thusly:
our office mail machine is (unfortunately) linux with ext2, and i
can attest to the fact that Maildir is pretty slow on ext2.
At 04:50 AM 1/21/02 -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
Personally, I use maildir for all my 'active' mailboxes (read: the ones
that mail gets delivered to and I read) because it's that much safer,
easier and more efficient to alter, and roughly similar in speed to open.
I use mbox for my archive
Michael Elkins wrote:
I'd be curious to get some feedback on my header caching patch for maildir
folders (can be found at http://www.sigpipe.org:8080/mutt/).
ok a little more feedback. overall performance is a little zippier, but
if i leave a folder open and it receives messages, i get the
of converting to using mutt, so I've been playing
Welcome!
% a bit. And it appears that the archive mailboxes *have* to be mboxes.
% If I try to save a message to an existing maildir folder, mutt objects.
Um, that shouldn't be the case. mutt will happily read and write mbox,
Maildir, MMDF, and MH
I wrote:
% And it appears that the archive mailboxes *have* to be mboxes.
% If I try to save a message to an existing maildir folder, mutt objects.
At 12:17 PM 1/21/02 -0500, David T-G wrote:
Um, that shouldn't be the case. mutt will happily read and write mbox,
Maildir, MMDF, and MH
, and a IBM DDRS-39130W SCSI UW hard drive running reiserfs.
The Maildir/mbox I tested, had 84.533 messages and about 321 MB. Opening
the mbox beast took 2:53 minutes, while opening the same converted to
Maildir (with mutt) took more than 25 minutes. Go figure...
Alexander Skwar
--
How to quote
So sprach »Christian Ordig« am 2002-01-21 um 11:22:04 +0100 :
opening times might be ... but think about updating times and the
Well, that's true, however, updating times aren't *that* important for
me. When I receive new mail, I let procmail sort it into appropriate
mailfiles; each list has
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 10:37:01PM +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote:
running reiserfs.
well ... as tests showed, ReiserFS seems to be a _really_ slow
beast when it comes to read Maildir folders ... tried with Ext2/3?
Should be really faster.
--
Christian Ordig
Germany
At some point hitherto, Alexander Skwar hath spake thusly:
The Maildir/mbox I tested, had 84.533 messages and about 321 MB. Opening
Eh? How does one have .533 messages in a mailbox? Perhaps fractional
messages are some feature of Maildir that I was unaware of?
Um... Oh, are you European
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:26:55PM -0500 I heard the voice of
Derek D. Martin, and lo! it spake thus:
Um... Oh, are you European? I seem to recall that Europeans switch
the meaning of '.' and ',' in numbers, as compared to us US types...
So perhaps you meant eighty-four thousand five
I was just wondering what the real differences were between maildir and
mbox formats? I know mbox is an appended file while maildir is a
separate directory for each mail (each what, exactly)?
What are the benefits of using one type over the other?
Thanks.
--
David Rock
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 12:08:44PM, David Rock wrote:
I was just wondering what the real differences were between maildir and
mbox formats? I know mbox is an appended file while maildir is a
separate directory for each mail (each what, exactly)?
one folder for a box, each mail
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 12:08:44PM -0600, David Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just wondering what the real differences were between maildir and
mbox formats? I know mbox is an appended file while maildir is a
separate directory for each mail (each what, exactly)?
What
one minute to open the whole mutt archive of last year
(about 9900 messages)...
the advantage of Maildir over mbox I see: deleting a single message
in a really big mailbox is nothing more than simply deleting one
file with mbox it means writing the whole folder again leaving out
this one message
to compare.
on my P100 with a quite old HDD running OpenBSD 2.9 it takes
about one minute to open the whole mutt archive of last year
(about 9900 messages)...
It takes about 7 seconds to open my mutt archive with 7914 messages.
the advantage of Maildir over mbox I see: deleting a single message
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:08:44 -0600
From: David Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mutt Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: maildir over mbox?
I was just wondering what the real differences were between maildir and
mbox formats? I know mbox is an appended file while maildir is a
separate
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 07:33:10PM, Benjamin Michotte wrote:
What are the benefits of using one type over the other?
opening a mbox with ± 7000 mails : less than 10 seconds.
opening the same in Maildir : 3 minutes...
Oh my good... convert my reiserfs partition to ext3...
about 10-15 seconds
.
the advantage of Maildir over mbox I see: deleting a single message
in a really big mailbox is nothing more than simply deleting one
file with mbox it means writing the whole folder again leaving out
this one message .
yes, I know. I tried to convert my mbox to Maildirs, but about 3 minutes
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 09:39:05PM +0100, Benjamin Michotte wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 09:01:39PM, Christian Ordig wrote:
uhhh ... what kind of system did you use for measurement??
P2-350 with a 20Gb HDD running Linux 2.4.17 on a Slackware 8.0.
My ~/mail is on a 600 Mb reiserfs
Oh my good... convert my reiserfs partition to ext3...
about 10-15 seconds to open my mutt Maildir now !!!
ooops ... I should have already read this mail before answering the
last subthread ,-)
little question: cached or first opening ?
Absolutly... reiserfs sucks.
*g*
--
Christian Ordig
As a slight aside on this discussion, I had read somewhere --- citation
lost --- that the munging of mboxes to escape lines beginning From in a
message to From messed up PGP signing. Is this valid? [I suspect not,
because I see lots of signed messages and you can't *all* be using
maildirs, can
At some point hitherto, budsz hath spake thusly:
yes, I know. I tried to convert my mbox to Maildirs, but about 3 minutes
to open a folder is really awfull, so I keep mbox
If we look in speed to read right..? how about savety...? let's say I want
to copy paste 1000 email to some place, I
Christian Ordig wrote:
Filesystem: UFS, mounted sync
[...]
Are there others having such poor performance with Maildir as Benjamin
has? And with which filesystem OS combinations?
our office mail machine is (unfortunately) linux with ext2, and i can
attest to the fact that Maildir is pretty
At some point hitherto, Roman Neuhauser hath spake thusly:
This format can get _very_ slow with large mailboxes on filesystems that do
not handle directoris with many files in them. This should include the
Linux ext2fs.
FreeBSD post-4.4 FFS with softupdates and dirhash
Andy Davidson wrote:
As a slight aside on this discussion, I had read somewhere --- citation
lost --- that the munging of mboxes to escape lines beginning From in a
message to From messed up PGP signing. Is this valid? [I suspect not,
because I see lots of signed messages and you can't
At some point hitherto, Will Yardley hath spake thusly:
Christian Ordig wrote:
Filesystem: UFS, mounted sync
[...]
Are there others having such poor performance with Maildir as Benjamin
has? And with which filesystem OS combinations?
our office mail machine is (unfortunately) linux
Derek D. Martin wrote:
I'm no expert, but it strikes me that OPENING maildir mailboxes on ANY
filesystem will ALWAYS be slower than mbox, because of what you need
to do. An mbox mailbox will generally have little fragmentation on
I'd be curious to get some feedback on my header caching patch
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 09:21:44PM -0500, Derek D. Martin wrote:
It's not any safer if you do it RIGHT. In computer science, you want
to tend to optimize for the common case, and the common case when
reading e-mail is wanting quick access. :)
Absolutely, I mean in my experience, I'll choise
Derek D. Martin wrote:
But how does it compare to mbox on the same FS? I'll bet it's still
significantly slower.
but with mbox, the entire file has to be stated every time the file is
read or modified. with a large file, this can be pretty resource
intensive, and can also be time consuming.
Derek D. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No manager I've ever worked for would tolerate waiting 3 minutes to
open their inbox...
That's funny because where I work, we use Lotus Notes, and I'm
sure many managers routinely wait this long for Notes to open
their inboxes (particularly if they
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 02:31:56AM, Christian Ordig wrote:
little question: cached or first opening ?
the first opening takes about 20 seconds (for this 7900 mails) and when
it's cached, it takes about 10-15 seconds, which is really more
acceptable ;)
Christian Ordig
---end quoted text---
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 02:29:22AM, Christian Ordig wrote:
well ... promises of ReiserFS should even tell us it's optimized for
filesystems holding thousands of small files ...
well, I think it's it's optimized for... hum, nothing ;)
Number of messages: 9089 (mutt-users archive of 2001)
Michael Elkins wrote:
I'd be curious to get some feedback on my header caching patch for
maildir folders (can be found at http://www.sigpipe.org:8080/mutt/).
(thanks to michael for helping me to get this to compile)... anyway
finally got this to work. note that you have to put
one last thing - if you're using the patch by david champion to count
attachments, it won't work with this patch. this is because mutt
doesn't look at the message file at all... so all files show up as if
they had one attachment.
w
* David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Thomas --
:set mbox_type=Maildir
T.
;C/tmp/TestMailFolder/
Thanks.
Well, let's see, here... Now I'm finally curious. First I opened
my big funnies folder and converted it to Maildir; on about 9400
messages that took mutt about 7 minutes to
On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 07:51:18PM -0500, Tim Legant wrote:
995153880.17759_1.teich
995153880.17760_1.teich
995153880.17761_1.teich
Procmail is severely broken in its creation of file names for maildirs.
If procmail correctly followed the specification for maildirs,
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 08:31:44PM +0200, Magnus Bodin wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 07:51:18PM -0500, Tim Legant wrote:
Procmail is severely broken in its creation of file names for maildirs.
If procmail correctly followed the specification for maildirs,
duplicates would be impossible.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 02:03:36PM -0500, Tim Legant wrote:
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 08:31:44PM +0200, Magnus Bodin wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 07:51:18PM -0500, Tim Legant wrote:
Procmail is severely broken in its creation of file names for maildirs.
If procmail correctly followed the
So sprach »Tim Legant« am 2001-07-15 um 14:03:36 -0500 :
Okay, so you're writing messages. A unique name has three pieces,
separated by dots. On the left is the result of time(). On the right is
the result of gethostname(). In the middle is something that doesn't
repeat within one
So sprach »Magnus Bodin« am 2001-07-15 um 21:38:49 +0200 :
I agree however, that the procmail filenames are ugly.
How do real maildir filenames look like? In reality, that is - we all
heard the spec :)
Alexander Skwar
--
How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 02:03:36PM -0500, Tim Legant wrote:
Note the requirement to use the hostname. Note that procmail doesn't.
Procmail is broken.
Does on mine:
_vz.z77T7.titanium
[breser@titanium new]$ hostname
titanium
[breser@titanium new]$ procmail -v
procmail v3.14 1999/11/22,
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 01:42:03AM +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
So sprach »Walt Mankowski« am 2001-07-13 um 19:04:43 -0400 :
Maildirs have some neat advantages of their own. For example it's
very easy to merge two folders together. I send mail from my laptop,
Hmm, dunno, but I find a
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
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
Chris Gushue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 15 May 2000:
How much
of a speed difference would there be between that and mbox?
I think this is really rather subjective and per-system issue, whatever
figures someone else might come up with on their system might be totally
off the mark on yours.
Mikko Hänninen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Chris Gushue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 15 May 2000:
How much
of a speed difference would there be between that and mbox?
I think this is really rather subjective and per-system issue, whatever
figures someone else might come up with on
Maildir is sounding more interesting to me all the time, with support for
it in procmail (can't remember if I knew about that before or not). How much
of a speed difference would there be between that and mbox? I'm currently
reading my mail on my 486 Linux box, and speed would be the main issue.
text
How do you convert these files into mbox or Maildir format? I want to be able
to read these messages using Mutt MUA.
Thank you in advance.
Subba Rao
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/
= Time is relative. Here is a new way to look at time. =
http://www.smcinnovations.com
Subba Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 21 Dec 1999:
How do you convert these files into mbox or Maildir format? I want to be able
to read these messages using Mutt MUA.
Well, best way perhaps might be to bounce them using PMMail, or maybe
"export" them in the unix mbox format. Th
On 0, Mikko Hänninen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subba Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 21 Dec 1999:
How do you convert these files into mbox or Maildir format? I want to be able
to read these messages using Mutt MUA.
Well, best way perhaps might be to bounce them using PMMail, or maybe
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Subba Rao wrote:
How do you convert these files into mbox or Maildir format? I want to be able
to read these messages using Mutt MUA.
Try this:
for a in *.msg; do
formail $a ${a}.f
done
cat *.msg.f mailbox
Regards
Oliver
--
butt(dot)com is not my e-mail adress
76 matches
Mail list logo
