On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 11:04:07AM +0200, Richard Lyons wrote: | On Sunday 25 April 2004 10:46, Deboo wrote: | > I'm subscribed to lots of mailing lists. I use mutt for email. Now | > using emacs, I use mutt within emacs since I use IMAP and find it | > hard to use gnus (which kinda behaves like pine, being | > news-oriented). I archive some mailing lists and have some | > mailboxes, going nearly over 40MBs or more. Now loading mutt | > within emacs and loading such a big mailbox, loads okay but makes | > mutt slow under emacs. mbox doen't scale well, as you can see. | > What is the best way to use such big mailboxes? | > I do not like to convert to maildirs, I'm using mbox format. | > Though I heard that maildir is faster, It is faster for operations such as saving a new message, updating flags on a message, and deleting a message. maildir could be slower for reading the headers of all messages because the disk heads may need to seek more than with mbox. | > isn't it harder to backup or carry around? No. It's just a single directory, with no need for locking. | > Just a single mbox file is easy to carry if need be. But | > anyway, what's the best way to use large mailbixes? | I am just getting organised to move from kmail to mutt, and have two | issues to deal with. | 1) the archive file issue you describe. I decided it's a good idea to split large folders up into smaller ones (ie moving list mail to a dated "archive" folder so it doesn't slow down loading of new list mail). My largest folders are currently in the 20-45MB range. Performance isn't too bad. | 2) the | fact that mutt cannot cope with nested folders as produced so | conveniently in kmail. Huh? I use mutt (with maildirs) and have a nice directory hierarchy. HTH, -D -- (A)bort, (R)etry, (T)ake down entire network? www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/ jabber: dman@dman13.dyndns.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature