Re: [Evolution] Mailbox formats

[Kenneth Porter <shiva sewingwitch com>]

--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
> nothing.

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.)