On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 02:05:17PM -0400, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
> On 06/14/01 12:05 PM, Adrian Chung sat at the `puter and typed:
> > Ah, that explains it... Are there plans to ever make this is user
> > configurable option? It takes forever to view mail in a mailbox that
> > has over 2000 messages. :)
> >
> Which is why mutt has a save-message command so you can easily back
> your messages up to a Save folder if you want. You can even set up
> save-hooks so all messages from a given person will be saved in
> particular folders, ie. if I get a mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED], I can
> set up a save hook so that after I read it, I can hit s<enter> and it
> will automagically dump it into my tomS folder. If I ever need to
> search the messages I got from Tom, I can go right to his save folder
> and I don't have to search 2000 messages, more like 150 or so.
>
> Folders are your friend :)
Yes, I'm very aware of save-hooks, what they are, and how to use
them. I should have said 2000 messages in a folder, not mailbox.
That's misleading. Apologies.
It's fairly easy to accumulate more than 1000 messages in a week or
two, that you don't want to get rid of too quickly because of the
thread history these messages contain.
If your office communicates mostly be e-mail, or you're on a number of
high traffic mailing lists, 150 messages is surpassed in about 24
hours.
> And if you happen to have that many messages in a folder, it should
> probably be one you don't get new mail in, or even have to dig through
> too often. I like to limit my incoming mailboxes to about 2 months
> worth of mail, that way reading new mail is very fast. From there,
> delete it or save it. Easy.
Yes, but Trash for example, which now contains over 6000 messages from
the past two months. It takes about 5 minutes to sort and fetch all
the mail headers.
I actually only wanted messages in Trash sorted by date, but mutt
still downloads all message headers. I went into Pine, and in about 2
seconds could scroll through all the mail in my Trash folder to
quickly find what I was looking for.
> Either way, I see why you would like to see this option, but I am not
> sure it will happen anytime soon. The reason is the flexibility of
> mutts sorting configs. In order to give you any kind of accurately
> sorted list of headers, mutt must download a complete list of the
> messages in a folder. So it boils down to a feature trade off. Do
I realized this after I send off my original post, thinking that
threading would be really difficult if you only had 25 message headers
to work with at a time. :)
However, given mutt's configuration files/options, it wouldn't be hard
to say:
folder-hook =Trash set sort=none
And have messages in Trash come up quickly, without any sorting
options, or restricted to those than can be done with limited
information.
> you want it fast, or do you want it the way you want it? You can't
> have both unless you can tell the server how to sort it. Imap just
> won't do that because it is a different task altogether. Even so, it
> would still take more time.
Speaking of this, do any clients, mutt included, make use of
server-side IMAP sorting features? I know the courier-imap daemon
boasts server-side IMAP sorting, but I don't know how/whether anything
can use them.
--
Adrian Chung (adrian at enfusion-group dot com)
http://www.enfusion-group.com/~adrian
GPG Fingerprint: C620 C8EA 86BA 79CC 384C E7BE A10C 353B 919D 1A17
[toad.enfusion-group.com] up 3 days, 15:40, 14 users
