On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 09:36:03PM -0500, Sam wrote:
> caches the headers by itself. It seems that the original IMAP
> implementation by uwimap was so piss-poor performance-wise, that pretty
> much all IMAP clients either do some form of caching themselves, or are
> very carefull not to issue any IMAP requests that might bog down the
> server.
Maildir updates after the first read *should* be really, really fast, even
over nfs. Just as long as it takes to scan through a directory. Anything
reading a maildir that takes much longer to update a view of one then it
takes ls(1) to list maildir/new is kinda broken (in the case when there's
only one reader/writer. There should be a check on the timestamp of cur,
but if that's not changed outside of the MUA, then it's only the time of one
stat()).
Also, my experience with MH is that Crispin is dead wrong about maildir
having all the problems of MH folders, and being less scaleable because of
it's time-based rename's. My recollection is that MH re-numbers all
messages in the folder ordinally based on their receipt time. I.e. if you
have 200 messages in your in box you have messages named 1 thru 200. If you
delete number 3, you will incurr 196 rename()'s on your folder. Maildir
isn't nearly that wasteful of resources.
Mutt supports maildir delightfully well.
--
The 5 year plan:
In five years we'll make up another plan.
Or just re-use this one.
