slow loading attachments

2017-01-25 Thread Rick Baartman
I hate that people now blithely email messages that have multi-Mb attachments. This is facilitated by clients' ability to efficiently download them. But my 2.7.2 exmh takes about a minute per 4Mb. Is there a way to speed it up? -- rick baartman, Head, Beam Physics Accelerator Division, TRIUMF 4

Re: slow loading attachments

2017-01-25 Thread Ken Hornstein
>I hate that people now blithely email messages that have multi-Mb >attachments. This is facilitated by clients' ability to efficiently >download them. But my 2.7.2 exmh takes about a minute per 4Mb. Is there >a way to speed it up? That seems rather slow. Like, way slower than the Ultra Sparc

Re: slow loading attachments

2017-01-25 Thread Rick Baartman
Thanks Ken. I'm embarrassed to say that haven't upgraded desktop in 10 years. I have FC6 on a 32 bit machine. -- rick baartman, Head, Beam Physics Accelerator Division, TRIUMF 4004 Wesbrook Mall Vancouver, BC V6T2A3 ___ Exmh-users mailing list Exmh-u

Re: slow loading attachments

2017-01-25 Thread Ken Hornstein
>I'm embarrassed to say that haven't upgraded desktop in 10 years. I >have FC6 on a 32 bit machine. Ahhh ... wow? Sadly, everyone ELSE has upgraded their desktops and don't think sending 30 MB attachments as a problem. I don't know your fiscal situation, but maybe an upgrade is in order? Also

Re: slow loading attachments

2017-01-25 Thread bergman
In the message dated: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:35:51 -0500, The pithy ruminations from Ken Hornstein on were: => >I'm embarrassed to say that haven't upgraded desktop in 10 years. I => >have FC6 on a 32 bit machine. => => Ahhh ... wow? Sadly, everyone ELSE has upgraded their desktops and Yep, my f

Re: slow loading attachments

2017-01-25 Thread Rick Baartman
You guys are shaming me. Actually would be interested to know whether you can login. > From exmh-users-boun...@redhat.com Wed Jan 25 15:57:07 2017 > > In the message dated: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:35:51 -0500, > The pithy ruminations from Ken Hornstein on > were: > => >I'm embarrassed to say that