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

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.


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