3 ms·
I'd wager any mbox optimization efforts are put on the back burner in lieu of modern usages, which seem to be in favor using it as a IMAP client only.
by notaplumber 10y ago
I'd wager any mbox optimization efforts are put on the back burner in lieu of modern usages, which seem to be in favor using it as a IMAP client only.
- stevekemp 10y agoI'd agree with that. That said there is an obvious solution to slow MBOX folders, which wouldbe to switch to using Maildir-storage, then using the `header_cache` setting(s).
- notaplumber 10y agoI personally don't mind MBOX, it's a simple format and if you archive it regularly and don't let it grow exponentially, it can be nice to work with.
- jabl 10y agombox is fine for a read-only (or at least append-only) archive. It's when you start deleting messages, changing flags etc. in the middle that it becomes a pain.
- just_had_tea 10y agoFor years i used Mutt as an IMAP client, but that was honestly quite a nightmare. Even back in the day at uni with an über fast internet connection it was still just not responsive enough. The day i switched to using OfflineIMAP and a local Maildir it was as if the blinds had been drawn aside and sunshine streamed into my INBOX :). Having said that, i use mu4e these days, because i've become an Emacs user. With a few tweaks it now scratches my itch very effectively (except of course the HTML-email problem as mentioned elsewhere -- this is especially troublesome at work where they want me to include an HTML-embedded-image-tabled monstrosity with about a page of legalese as a signature).