[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Outlook more efficient in storing mails?



On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 14:44 +0800, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> I've been reported that Outlook on Windows is more efficient in storing
> mails with attachments, as it stores them in unencoded 8-bit format
> while the various Unix tools[1] store them as they've been received, so
> a big attachment would be stored mime-encoded taking 1/3 more disk size.
> 
> Does someone know of work-arounds to this with Thunderbird or Evolution?

Some comments:

.PST is a proprietary format.  base64, mbox, mh & Maildir are 
standard (or, at least, published, open) formats.  Mozilla*, Evo, 
Mutt, Sylpheed, etc, use open formats.

I *think* that T-bird lets you extract attachments, while retaining
the email.

HD capacity is *cheap*.

> Ciao,
> 
> Enrico
> 
> [1] except of course mutt storing to compressed mailboxes, but then they
> can't be big


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
stupidity."
Hanlon's Razor
"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by
incompetence"
Napoleon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: