Re: [Evolution] Mailbox formats

--On Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:48 PM +0000 Nigel Metheringham
<Nigel Metheringham dev InTechnology co uk> wrote:

Not very compressible - too little plaintext to let
algorithms loose on plus compressing smaller than basic block size gains

Are you sure? Or is that only when compressing individual messages? It
seems to me that if one first tar's a mailbox and the gzips it, the tarball
will have many messages with repeated strings (eg. header lines) and so be
just as compressable as a single mbox file.

I'd also like to point out mbx format, the format promoted by the UW-IMAP
people. It's a many-messages-per-file format but it's designed for update.
As it's a binary format, it can't be easily hand-edited, and the use of
c-client library functions for maintenance is preferred. (I'm still using
mbox, so this is my regurgitation of what I remember from a visit to the
UW-IMAP site.)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]