Re: maximum nuber of messages in mutt?
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 02:21:21PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> dman <dsh8290@rit.edu> writes:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:25:29PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > | More powerful mail readers (/me ducks) cache messages much more
> > | efficiently than mutt.
> > |
> > | Emacs gnus, for example, only fetches/displays unread messages unless
> > | you tell it otherwise, which makes it far faster to open and read
> > | folders.
> >
> > Mmm, how does it know which message(s) are unread until it reads
> > through the (mbox) file?
[...]
> Hmm, you're probably right... I've never used gnus with mbox (just
> imap, where it easily beats mutt in performance). It's generally
> frowned upon to use mbox formats with gnus, probably because it's slow
> to parse mboxes.
Then I would have to suggest that mutt might be more efficient than gnus
for local access, since it can handle mboxes with 5000+ messages quite
quickly. :)
/me runs from people wielding actual benchmark figures
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: