"Stephen D. Williams" said:
> Gigabytes (about 2), in mbox.
158 megs of active mail in MH format, and about 20megs compressed in a few
> There is an enhanced mbox that uses the content-length header to avoid
> the "^From " quoting. Another spinoff of mbox (from SCO I believe) uses
> '^A^A^A^A' between each message.
That's MMDF format. Thankfully now pretty much obsolete ;)
> I access email through Imap so that the browser caches and indexes are
> throw away, and so I can walk up to any of my 12 computers in the house
> and access the same email in the same way. I believe that Netscape uses
> berkeley db indexes/email files, but no need to worry about that.
I've been meaning to set up imap, but so far the clients (as far as I can
see) are lacking; there's just Netscape mail (urgh) or LookOut (which
would mean installing Windows, no thanks). Once Evolution gets there I
might try it out and set up imap though.
My fingers are too hardwired for ExMH at this stage ;) It'll take a very
good mail client for me to switch now.
> MH format is rediculous unless you are using ReiserFS where small files
> are so efficient it's not a problem at all.
Mmm, seems OK when you use e.g. ExMH to cache the scan listings... I just
can't see the efficiency of the mbox format compared to MH.
Anyway, before we get into an mbox-vs-MH-format war ;) at least it's not
stored in some horrific database without any tools to get it back out
again, unlike a certain .pst format ;)
-- Justin Mason Work: http://www.netnoteinc.com/ <firstname.lastname@example.org> Personal: http://jmason.org/ <email@example.com>
"It's true that some sharks get cancer. I said this in my book." -- William Lane, author of _Sharks Don't Get Cancer_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:18:33 PDT