Re: [Evolution] [Fwd: Re: Tunning for large number of files in INBOX]

["Patrick O'Callaghan" <poc usb ve>]

On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 13:16 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 10:41 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > I can't comment on Pine, but I find TBird's IMAP a lot faster than
> > Evo's. Also more reliable (I've *never* had TBird hang on me). Given
> > recent comments about rewriting the IMAP code, is no-one thinking of
> > just adapting it from some other client (TBird, Pine, ...)? I mean,
> > isn't that what free software is all about?
>
> rarely can one *ever* adapt code from one project into another because
> they use different abstractions, etc. Evolution also has features the
> others do not.
>
> When I rewrote IMAP for Evo last year (which only supported the small
> subset of features the moz-mail, etc supported), it was blazingly fast
> until I had to go and add back all the feature-bloat that users demanded
> that had been included in previous versions of Evolution.
>
> A huge slowness for Evo IMAP is the fact that it has to ask for
> whole-headers in order to support vfoldering on mailing-lists,
> attachment icons in the message-list, etc.
>
> If you eliminate the need to FETCH BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIELDS ...], and
> instead can settle on just ENVELOPE, things are MUCH faster. 

I guessed you'd say that, so the next question is: why can't vfolders be
turned off? (I know Trash and Junk are a special case). There are times
when I'd trade *some* features for speed if I had a choice.

poc