Le duodi 22 thermidor, an CCXIV, Nicolas Rachinsky a écrit : > Maildir with the header cache shouldn't need to access that much data > on the disk to open a folder. That is probably true. But maildir is evil for big archived spools. First, not all filesystems handle efficiently directories with a lot of small files, and changing filesystem is often not an option. Secondly, even if the filesystem is efficient, thousands of files will trash the operating system's inode and dentries cache, reducing the whole system performance. Furthermore, the central point of maildir features is avoiding concurrent modification problems, which is irrelevant for read-only folders. > The threadcomplete patch should do this. Yes, I did not know it, and it could be of some help. It is not direct, thought, since it completes threads for tagged messages, not for messages selected by the current pattern. For that, I believe the solution is to untag all, tag according to the pattern, and then select with threadcomplete. It can be done with macros, but it is not perfect. Le tridi 23 thermidor, an CCXIV, Dave a écrit : > What do you folks think of dbmail (.org)? I'm curious about the > possibility of modifying its folder implementation to resemble labels > (like GMail) while keeping the tree-like structure (unlike GMail). > Then, you only need to write a back-end driver for Mutt to talk to the > database. (Until then, you could just use the IMAP server.) I am not sure it can help. As far as I can see, especially in the description of the database structure, it is still tightly tied to the "each mail in one mailbox" scheme, and it lacks a protocol for the client specify which messages hi is interested in. Le tridi 23 thermidor, an CCXIV, Kyle Wheeler a écrit : > DBmail was actually apropo to the subject of a recent heated debate on > the qmail mailing list. The summary is here: > http://www.memoryhole.net/~kyle/databaseemail.html It can be summarized further: "I know nothing about databases, but that does not prevent me from ranting about them." Anyway, I am not in favor of storing the mail spool in a database. At the very least, it is a good thing to keep the compatibility with others mail tools. On the other hand, a database _around_ the spool, to cache the most useful headers and allow efficient complex queries, that is another question. At least, I am happy that several people are interested in the question, and that various interesting ideas come out of it. Regards, -- Nicolas George
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature