On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 10:20:25AM +0200, Laurent Mirguet wrote:
> And are you sure the the size of the mailbox has no impact on the
> performances. For example, does mutt take the same time for reading a
> mailbox of 1 mails and 2Mo, and a mailbox of 1 mails and 200Mo
> ?
Are you using
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 05:08:22PM -0400, Jim Toth wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 09:54:14PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 08:19:56PM +0200, Laurent Mirguet wrote:
> >
> > > Eudora removes the attachments from the mailboxes, which is nice to
> >
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 09:54:14PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 08:19:56PM +0200, Laurent Mirguet wrote:
>
> > Eudora removes the attachments from the mailboxes, which is nice to
> > keep small mailboxes. Is it possible to do the same with mutt ?
Ye
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 08:19:56PM +0200, Laurent Mirguet wrote:
> Eudora removes the attachments from the mailboxes, which is nice to
> keep small mailboxes. Is it possible to do the same with mutt ?
Oh, and where are the attachments kept? Mutt doesn't really suffer from the
size of the individ
Hello,
Eudora removes the attachments from the mailboxes, which is nice to
keep small mailboxes. Is it possible to do the same with mutt ?
Laurent Mirguet
