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

Re: Email programs that work.



On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 07:44:00AM +0100, Wulfy wrote:
> >PID   USER     PRI  NI  SIZE  RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM   TIME CPU COMMAND
> >18782 foo       15   0  3360 3356  1704 S     0.0  2.6   0:04   0 mutt
> >
> >This is one huge advantage of Mutt.  The memory footprint is
> >unbelievably small, particularly in light of how much power it offers.
> >
> >  
> But that is not a fair comparison with T-bird...  what about all the 
> other programs you must use to get the same functionality?

Oh, very well...

PID   USER     PRI  NI  SIZE  RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM   TIME CPU COMMAND
18782 foo       15   0  3360 3356  1704 S     0.0  2.6   0:04   0 mutt
 9019 smmsp     15   0   560  124    24 S     0.0  0.0   0:00   0 sendmail
19462 foo       25   0   668  668   584 S     0.1  0.5   0:00   0 procmail
19270 foo       15   0  2608 2608  1736 S     0.0  2.0   0:00   0 vim


I had to force a procmail to run long enough to catch by running a
fairly large mailbox through it using formail.  I suspect to do a
single message (the normal usage case) the footprint would be
smaller.  But no matter.  Even at that, we're talking about a WHOPPING
7MB of TOTAL memory usage, including my editor, the sendmail
submission daemon, mutt, and procmail.  RSS of a little more than 4MB.

Oh, yes... I do run sendmail on the machine, so there are listener
daemons that are using some memory too.  But they don't count, because
this machine actually IS my mail server, and you don't have those in
Tbird.  Mutt is compiled with pop and IMAP support, even though I
don't actually use them (the theory being I might need them someday,
and don't want to have to recompile in that event).

And yes, mutt can retrieve mail.  But it's better if you use
fetchmail, if you want to do filtering, which can pipe the messages
through procmail.

-- 
Derek D. Martin
http://www.pizzashack.org/
GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D

Attachment: pgpzJom7GmUj7.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: