3 ms·
True for Gmail (and similar, I'm sure), not so true for my corporate Outlook account where search sucks and is really slow, and has ridiculously tiny storage al
by soft_dev_person 11y ago
True for Gmail (and similar, I'm sure), not so true for my corporate Outlook account where search sucks and is really slow, and has ridiculously tiny storage allocated so I actually have to archive older messages in an actual file...
- toothbrush 11y agoWhat about something like OfflineIMAP + notmuch or mu? That works for me, and search is as good (or better) than it was for me using Gmail.
- pm215 11y agoNot all Exchange setups are configured to allow IMAP access...
- psychometry 11y agoSounds like you just have an incompetent IT department. Storage is cheap and fast searching of databases is a solved problem.
- scott_s 11y agoAs of a week ago, I was on Notes at work, which had not-so-great search. I still did this. Once or twice in the past few years I had to go in an delete large attachments, but I do that when it becomes a problem. It's not worth the mental effort of categorizing emails. (And deleting counts as categorizing.) Now I'm on Verse (http://www.ibm.com/social-business/us/en/newway/ http://www.ibm.com/social-business/us/en/newway/), and it has great search. I'll keep doing what I was doing, just with even less pain.