On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:24:48AM EDT, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:33:32AM EDT, Thomas Glanzmann wrote: > > > Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too? > > > > is it true, that mbx isn't NFS safe? Another option, of course, is to use a filesystem designed specifically for mail, like IMAP, instead of NFS. An advantage there is that the IMAP server can access the mail locally, and can therefore use an intrinsically efficient mail store format like mbx. Sure, network clients will have to suffer a performance penalty for accessing mail through IMAP, but they'll have to suffer NFS penalties anyway, and at least with IMAP-from-mbx, local clients don't have to suffer maildir penalties too. I use IMAP even for local access (which is why it wasn't a hard decision for me to move to mbx), and find the IMAP penalty to be somewhat less than unbearable, as long as I don't have to reopen Mutt (say, if it crashes). A header cache would fix that last problem :-) - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpNs4klRfJeM.pgp
Description: PGP signature