Re: Mailbox types: MBOX or MH
Bryan Scaringe <Bryan.Scaringe@computer.org> writes:
> I'd like to create a new mailbox folder. My MUA, XFmail,
> supports both MH and MBOX style mailboxes. Which is
> better? Or rather, what are the pros and cons of each?
> I would like to start using Mohogany, once its a little
> more stable. Will my choice of mailbox type make any
> difference to that transition?
Here's what the gnus doc has to say about those two; I
don't know XFmail, but I assume most of this applies:
------
`nnmbox'
UNIX systems have historically had a single, very common, and well-
defined format. All messages arrive in a single "spool file", and
they are delineated by a line whose regular expression matches
`^From_'. (My notational use of `_' is to indicate a space, to
make it clear in this instance that this is not the RFC-specified
`From:' header.) Because Emacs and therefore Gnus emanate
historically from the Unix environment, it is simplest if one does
not mess a great deal with the original mailbox format, so if one
chooses this backend, Gnus' primary activity in getting mail from
the real spool area to Gnus' preferred directory is simply to copy
it, with no (appreciable) format change in the process. It is the
"dumbest" way to move mail into availability in the Gnus
environment. This makes it fast to move into place, but slow to
parse, when Gnus has to look at what's where.
`nnmh'
The Rand MH mail-reading system has been around UNIX systems for a
very long time; it operates by splitting one's spool file of
messages into individual files, but with little or no indexing
support - `nnmh' is considered to be semantically equivalent to
"`nnml' without active file or overviews". This is arguably the
worst choice, because one gets the slowness of individual file
creation married to the slowness of access parsing when learning
what's new in one's groups.
------
So if those are the only two choices, I guess mbox is likely to
be better if you don't need MH for somehting else.
HTH
Reply to: