Hi there!
On 3 Apr 00, at 10:34, SyP wrote
about "storing messages in mailbox or individually":
> what is the main reason for storing the messages in one big file per
> folder?
Works faster;-)
> Wouldn't it be nicer if TB used one file per message? NTFS and also
> ReiserFS on Linux can store small files pretty efficiently!
> (Of course FAT16 or FAT32 cannot).
I'm not going to install NT of any flavour here just in order to make the life of e-
mail client better;-) If I though this way, I'd never uninstall OS/2 and would
have all my volumes in HPFS;-))
> So maybe the forthcoming Linux port should use the 1 f/msg method.
What for? Why don't you like the 2files per 1folder method? Remember,
under Linux there are no problems with defragmentation anyway;-)
--
SY, Alex
(St.Petersburg, Russia)
http://mph.phys.spbu.ru/~akiselev
---
Thought for the day:
The bigger they are, the harder they hit.
---
PGP public keys on keyservers:
0xA2194BF9 (RSA); 0x214135A2 (DH/DSS)
fingerprints:
F222 4AEF EC9F 5FA6 7515 910A 2429 9CB1 (RSA)
A677 81C9 48CF 16D1 B589 9D33 E7D5 675F 2141 35A2 (DH/DSS)
---
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
