Hi all! On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 12:43:17PM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote: > >Check out the first "Letters to the Editor" in today's "Linux > >Weekly News" (www.lwn.net), it contains some critique of mutt by > >Erik Kidd. To me, all of it doesn't seem accurate, e.g. "Mutt > >can't search message bodies." ... > - Concerning index caching, Eric is right. Mutt is slow at loading > folders when compared to a MUA which caches all the meta > information in some kind of database. > > Adding something like this to mutt would be feasible. It would, > however, ruin the designed-in robustness advantages of maildir > folders (for instance).
Wouldn't it be cool to make a option for the user to choose between caching or not the mailboxes? Not caching the mails, realy take some time, specialy on slow machines, some time people still use that... (e.g. University old mail-check-only machines) MUA like pine (I was a pine user) caches, and it feels like the program is much faster. My question is: Is it hard to implement such a feature? (Feature, no bug ;) If it's not, then it would be cool to make that, and then make an option for the user to use it or not. > ... > -- > Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/ -- Cleber S. Mori HPage: http://grad.icmc.sc.usp.br/~cleber/ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ/UIN: 1409389
