* Michael D. Schleif ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030209 19:32]: > > Jeff wrote: > > I've not used mh mail boxes before, only maildir and mbox. I use > > maildir for my active mailboxes for it's ability to keep messages from > > getting messed up on delivery (sorry for the non-tech reason). For > > mail boxes that I use for archive and are non-active, I use mbox for > > it's ease in backing up. > > This is interesting -- is it possible to use two (2) mailbox formats at > once? > > Can mutt be used to review incoming mail under maildir, and also to > browse my archived mail under mbox? How?
Yes. You don't need to do anything special; when you open a mailbox, it figures out what type it is. > > Performance-wise, I don't think you'll notice a difference in loading > > the mail box on a modern machine. On older, slower machines, you > > might see the mbox loading faster than the maildir folders. > > > > If I had an archive mail box that size, I'd leave it as an mbox so I > > can back it up easier since it's a single file as opposed to a > > directory. > > My biggest concern is number of inodes. Well, you can tar and compress a maildir, and then it only takes 1, same as an mbox. That works fine for archiving, though is not as convenient for active mailboxes. I also don't really buy that a maildir is difficult to back up (especially if you tar.(gz|bz2) it). I like using maildirs mostly because mbox feels like a dirty hack, with the whole "From " thing. I also like the increased scriptability using standard GNU tools like grep to find and process individual messages, instead of having to use some sort of mbox-parsing perl module. good times, Vineet -- http://www.doorstop.net/ -- http://www.debian.org/
msg29822/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
