Don Armstrong (2018-04-04):
> There are definitely better formats than Maildir, like Dovecot's
> multi-dbox.[1]
>
> These issues are why almost everyone who uses Maildir just uses it as
> the backing message store and uses the index on top to do avoid ever
> reading all of the messages in the Mail
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 01:43:41PM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
| Chris Hilts wrote:
|
| > Are there any opinions on mbox vs. maildir? I'm told by several friends
| > that maildir is probably the more efficient way to go, but my Debian system
| > came with mbox by default, and I'm not sure how e
Chris Hilts wrote:
> Are there any opinions on mbox vs. maildir? I'm told by several friends
> that maildir is probably the more efficient way to go, but my Debian system
> came with mbox by default, and I'm not sure how easy/wise it would be to
> change.
It depends what you mean by "efficien
* Chris Hilts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> Are there any opinions on mbox vs. maildir? I'm told by several friends
> that maildir is probably the more efficient way to go, but my Debian system
> came with mbox by default, and I'm not sure how easy/wise it would be to
> change.
The probl
"Chris Hilts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are there any opinions on mbox vs. maildir? I'm told by several friends
> that maildir is probably the more efficient way to go, but my Debian system
> came with mbox by default, and I'm not sure how easy/wise it would be to
> change.
A thorough com
* Chris Hilts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Are there any opinions on mbox vs. maildir? I'm told by several friends
> that maildir is probably the more efficient way to go, but my Debian system
> came with mbox by default, and I'm not sure how easy/wise it would be to
> change.
>
> Thanks in ad
6 matches
Mail list logo
