>> cant tell him to clean up his act. My biggest fear is he will insist on a
>> move to Exchange and that it would be
>> faster as I have always advocated Linux servers.
> sounds to me like squirrelmail is the wrong client.
why did you com to that conclusion ?
> I use mozilla mailnews to read
Jonathan Nichols wrote:
I suspect the the standard Redhat 9 uw-imap is not the best imap
implementation for this type of usage.
:-O
Oh no, it's probably the *worst* thing that you could use in that
situation!
bear to administer, and I don’t know what else to consider. What have
you
found to b
> Have you taken a look into Courier-IMAP at all? If you're
> using uw-imap,
> chances are everything is in mbox format - there are many mbox ->
> maildir utilities out there that will help you move to the
> more robust
> maildir format.
It seems to the solution most offered, I will do some r
I suspect the the standard Redhat 9 uw-imap is not the best imap
implementation for this type of usage.
:-O
Oh no, it's probably the *worst* thing that you could use in that situation!
bear to administer, and I don’t know what else to consider. What have you
found to be faster for users with huge
We have performance issues with Squirrelmail and imap in general due to
users with large amounts of mail. We have one user, the president of the
company, who insists on keeping every mail he ever sent anyone or received,
and routinely sends 8 MB emails. His mail is topping 4 GB sorted into
various
let's face it, squirrelmail sucks at handling large folders.
Let's face it, you haven't seen the mail threads that refer to the
rewritten caching mechanisms in 1.5.1. Jay's post is correct, but you
should be aware that there are noticable speed improvements in the
development stream.
-
Chris Shenton wrote:
> Morten Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Peter Campion-Bye wrote:
I'm using courier under trustix, and SM is horribly slow when reading
mail in a folder with 14k items (not counting subfolders)
>>>
>>> Do you have 'Allow server-side sorting = true' (Gen
Morten Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Campion-Bye wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm using courier under trustix, and SM is horribly slow when reading
>>> mail in a folder with 14k items (not counting subfolders)
>>
>> Do you have 'Allow server-side sorting = true' (General options - item 12)?
>> My
Jay Lee wrote:
> Morten Nilsen said:
>> Chris Mason wrote:
>>> We have performance issues with Squirrelmail and imap in general due to
>>> users with large amounts of mail. We have one user, the president of the
>>> company, who insists on keeping every mail he ever sent anyone or
>>>received,
>>>
Peter Campion-Bye said:
> I can definitely recommend Courier as a worthwhile improvement over uw. I
> looked at Cyrus, but as all the users on my network are also shell account
> users it seemed unnecessarily complex.
Courier IMHO, offers sysadmins the best of both worlds, you can use
auth_pam an
Peter Campion-Bye wrote:
>>
>> I'm using courier under trustix, and SM is horribly slow when reading
>> mail in a folder with 14k items (not counting subfolders)
>
> Do you have 'Allow server-side sorting = true' (General options - item 12)?
> My largest folder currently has 4100 items, and loads
Morten Nilsen said:
> Chris Mason wrote:
>> We have performance issues with Squirrelmail and imap in general due to
>> users with large amounts of mail. We have one user, the president of the
>> company, who insists on keeping every mail he ever sent anyone or
>>received,
>> and routinely sends 8 M
>
> I'm using courier under trustix, and SM is horribly slow when reading
> mail in a folder with 14k items (not counting subfolders)
Do you have 'Allow server-side sorting = true' (General options - item 12)?
My largest folder currently has 4100 items, and loads in under a second.
--
Chris Mason wrote:
[snip]
I suspect the the standard Redhat 9 uw-imap is not the best imap
implementation for this type of usage. Cyrus is interesting but I suspect a
bear to administer, and I don’t know what else to consider. What have you
found to be faster for users with huge mail accounts, what
Peter Campion-Bye wrote:
>>
>> I suspect the the standard Redhat 9 uw-imap is not the best imap
>> implementation for this type of usage. Cyrus is interesting but I suspect
>> a
>> bear to administer, and I don’t know what else to consider. What have you
>> found to be faster for users with huge ma
>
> I suspect the the standard Redhat 9 uw-imap is not the best imap
> implementation for this type of usage. Cyrus is interesting but I suspect
> a
> bear to administer, and I dont know what else to consider. What have you
> found to be faster for users with huge mail accounts, what kind of speed
>> We have performance issues with Squirrelmail and imap in general due
>> to users with large amounts of mail. We have one user, the president
>> of the company, who insists on keeping every mail he ever sent anyone
>> or received, and routinely sends 8 MB emails. His mail is topping 4 GB
>> sorte
Chris Mason wrote:
> We have performance issues with Squirrelmail and imap in general due to
> users with large amounts of mail. We have one user, the president of the
> company, who insists on keeping every mail he ever sent anyone or received,
> and routinely sends 8 MB emails. His mail is toppin
Chris Mason said:
> We have performance issues with Squirrelmail and imap in general due to
> users with large amounts of mail. We have one user, the president of the
> company, who insists on keeping every mail he ever sent anyone or
> received,
Same thing I do, why should I be bothered to pull
We have performance issues with Squirrelmail and imap in general due to
users with large amounts of mail. We have one user, the president of the
company, who insists on keeping every mail he ever sent anyone or received,
and routinely sends 8 MB emails. His mail is topping 4 GB sorted into
various
20 matches
Mail list logo
