Hello Roelof,

Thursday, January 8, 2009, 11:09:50 AM, you wrote:

RO> Hallo Jack,

RO> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:00:44 -0600GMT (8-1-2009, 0:00 +0100, where I
RO> live), you wrote:

JSL>> A long time ago there was a thread on the dangers of leaving messages
JSL>> in the inbox. Unfortunately I no longer remember exactly what the
JSL>> danger was. I searched the archives for the subject line above but
JSL>> found nothing explaining the problem. Does anybody remember?

RO> Basically it comes to this.
RO> The Inbox is a high traffic folder: every message that enters your
RO> message base first arrives in the Inbox, moving and deleting
RO> (automatically   and  manually)  means another mutation of your Inbox.
RO> Due to these multiple mutations it's easy for things to go awry.
RO> There's your first reason not to use the Inbox for permanent storage.
RO> When  your  Inbox  is large it's more difficult to mutate it then when
RO> it's  small,  so  using  the Inbox for permanent storage makes it more
RO> likely for things to go awry.
RO> Of course executing compress and purge daily minimises the chance that
RO> things go bad.

RO> I've  never had a corrupt Inbox, so I've never been bitten, but in the
RO> past  the  issue  came up regularly. But why use a mail client with an
RO> extensive  filtering  engine  like TB when you store everything in the
RO> Inbox.

First let me apologize for the double post (what, me senile?) on the
original question. Second, thanks to you and Thomas for answering the
question. To see it described as you and Thomas have done makes sense.
I remember the warning about this (though not the reason) from years
ago and I then promptly created a "Faux inbox" which is filled with all
incoming messages to the primary inbox by a filter. I just couldn't
remember why I did it.

Best regards, Jack

Using TB! v3.99.3 with K9 v1.28 anti spam
Windows XP pro 5.1 Build 2600 - Service Pack 3

Current version is 4.1.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information:

Reply via email to