On Tuesday 27 September 2005 15:27, Derek Broughton wrote: > Randy Kramer wrote: > > I suppose maildir will be OK (and maybe even better) for my inbox, > > which I generally keep "trimmed" (not too many emails). > > > > I don't think I want to do that for my mail folders which often > > have a lot (thousands) of archived emails (usually short). > > > > Is it the general consensus that mbox is more subject to corruption > > than maildir? > > By definition. > > Why do you think Maildir would perform worse for folders with > thousands of emails? Everything I've read suggests it will perform > better - and more reliably.
Because you need a file system which handles small files efficiently (i.e. ReiseFS) otherwise you waste much space on your hard drive. Cheers, André
