On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 18:58 -0700, Mark Hull-Richter wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 00:27 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 18:35 -0700, MHR wrote:
>
> > Delete them and see what happens. You could also delete the summary
> > files for existing folders. Evo will just recr
On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 00:27 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 18:35 -0700, MHR wrote:
> Delete them and see what happens. You could also delete the summary
> files for existing folders. Evo will just recreate them. Who knows,
> there could be a problem there.
I deleted al
On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 18:35 -0700, MHR wrote:
> I just timed a small email message save to a local sub-subfolder of my
> main local folder: 16-17 seconds. This is a small email message being
> saved to a 62MB folder.
That's definitely off. 62MB is nothing and saving a small message to it
shouldn'
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 6:23 PM, MHR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> It's important to say what *kind* of folder. Is it local or remote? If
>> local, is it an mbox and if so how big is it? Has it been expunged
>>
On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 10:58 -0700, Mark Hull-Richter wrote:
> I'm running Evolution for my mailer on CentOS 5.2 (yes, I know it's OLD,
> but it's supposed to be STABLE), Evo v. 2.12.3, and I'm seeing the most
> horrendously slow responses when I save an email to a folder. Some are
> quick, but mos
I'm running Evolution for my mailer on CentOS 5.2 (yes, I know it's OLD,
but it's supposed to be STABLE), Evo v. 2.12.3, and I'm seeing the most
horrendously slow responses when I save an email to a folder. Some are
quick, but most of them are awfully slow, and there are only a small few
that are
