On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:50:39 -0700 Kui Zhang articulated: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Charles Marcus > <cmar...@media-brokers.com> wrote: > > On 2011-09-27 2:06 PM, Ed W <li...@wildgooses.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 20/09/2011 03:10, Kui Zhang wrote: > >>> > >>> thunderbird does not really work for us, due to amount of emails > >>> per mailbox. It was hogging all the memory + cpu. > > > >> I think if you disable the new local indexing features in TB then > >> it should start running fairly decently? > > > > Also - Outlook is by far much slower than Thunderbird in my > > experience... > > > > I think if you disable the new local indexing features in TB then it > > should start running fairly decently? > > I had indexing disabled... that did not help much. > > TB work better after I have these settings... > > mail.imap.expunge_after_delete true > mail.imap.expunge_option 2 > mail.server.default.autosync_offline_stores false > mail.server.default.offline_download false > mail.server.default.autosync_max_age_days 14 > > I think mail.imap.expunge_after_delete might have caused mdbox limit > problem I had before... but not confirmed. > > > > > > Also - Outlook is by far much slower than Thunderbird in my > > experience... > > > > Multiple people in the office report outlook is faster (when it > works).
I have always found Outlook to be much faster than TB. In any case, Outlook 2007 is an old version. I am using the 2010 version at work and it is a much more polished application than the 2010 version and far superior to TB. -- Jerry ✌ dovecot.u...@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________
