Re: Folder Format for my setup

[Kyle Wheeler <kyle-mutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday, May  9 at 09:40 PM, quoth Cleverson:
> I've just installed Gentoo Linux and now I intend to setup a mail 
> system with Mutt. My CPU is an AMD Sempron 1500 mhz, 256 RAM. My 
> filesystem is ReiserFS 3.6.

Well, ReiserFS is particularly well suited for Maildir, but...

> Usually, I receive about 20 to 60 messages per day, depending on how 
> active I am at mailing lists.

For someone that's receiving such a small amount of mail, it really 
doesn't matter either way.

> I'd like to know, for example, wheter there are features that don't 
> exist or don't work well with one of the two folder formats,

Nope, the features are about the same. Depending on how you use 'em, 
you may find the convenience of having each message in a separate file 
useful, or you may not.

Mbox stores messages more efficiently, however, since in maildir 
messages must be at least the minimum file size (usually 4k) where in 
mbox messages are all concatenated together. But, unless you've got 
massive amounts of email and/or are particularly worried about storage 
efficiency, this isn't a big deal (and good filesystems have ways of 
compensating).

> if one of them have theoretically better performance in general, 
> what is the best format to manage messages (move, copy, save...), 
> either using Mutt or other programs.

If you're doing a lot of manipulation of the contents (and I mean a 
*LOT*), Maildir will generally give you better performance. If you 
have GIANT folders (containing tens of thousands of messages) that 
don't change much (or ever), then mbox will give you better 
performance.

> Is it true that Maildir has better performance while loading folders?

Not usually; particularly for large folders, just the opposite is 
true, especially when opening them for the first time. On the other 
hand, if your client can cache things, like filenames and such, it may 
be able to refresh folders without having to reread everything.

> And about file corruption consequences for each one?

In MOST cases, that's not an issue. The problem, of course, is that 
manipulating an mbox file requires you to lock it first, which means 
that every program that will manipulate it has to use and obey the 
same locking mechanism, which can be particularly tricky on NFS shares 
(primarily on older NFS implementations). If you're worried about it, 
Maildir is probably safer, but for most purposes, this is a solved 
problem.

There is the possibility that a power outage might do something uglier 
to an mbox than a Maildir, but with a journaling filesystem (like 
ReiserFS), that's not a major issue.

So, really, either one will probably serve you in good stead.

Personally, I'm fond of Maildir, because the meta data is stored in 
the filename rather than in the mail itself, and the fact that each 
message is a separate file makes my archiving scripts much much 
simpler (e.g. move all files older than X to the archive), but that's 
just me. Other people prefer mbox for different reasons. I don't think 
you can say that there's a definitively "better" one, particularly for 
a low-traffic, massively over-powered system like yours.

~Kyle
- -- 
Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally 
to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his 
conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his 
conscience, especially in religious matters."
                                             -- Catholic Catechism 1782
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!

iD8DBQFGQoEcBkIOoMqOI14RAtreAJ9RMK9TzN6yuJP4qrSznONFfzWRBACfXmDe
+Ts0r1/hEaYbE4lifF3tTF4=
=GDWI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----