On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 02:21:21PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: > dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:25:29PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: > > | More powerful mail readers (/me ducks) cache messages much more > > | efficiently than mutt. > > | > > | Emacs gnus, for example, only fetches/displays unread messages unless > > | you tell it otherwise, which makes it far faster to open and read > > | folders. > > > > Mmm, how does it know which message(s) are unread until it reads > > through the (mbox) file? [...] > Hmm, you're probably right... I've never used gnus with mbox (just > imap, where it easily beats mutt in performance). It's generally > frowned upon to use mbox formats with gnus, probably because it's slow > to parse mboxes.
Then I would have to suggest that mutt might be more efficient than gnus for local access, since it can handle mboxes with 5000+ messages quite quickly. :) /me runs from people wielding actual benchmark figures -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
