On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 08:14:02 -0500 Tanstaafl <tanstaafl at libertytrek.org> wrote:> On 11/17/2016 10:58 AM, Steve Litt <slitt at troubleshooters.com> wrote: > > I have over 620K emails in over 1000 folders. This turns Thunderbird > > into an all day affair, just to refresh its caches. > > There are lots of knobs you can tweak to improve the situation, but > the bottom line is - 1,000 folders (really?!?), 650,000 emails - > well... this is going to be a problem for almost any client.It wasn't a problem for Kmail, before the disastrous conversion to Kmail2. It wasn't a problem with Claws-Mail (I'm leaving Claws for non-technical reasons). My experimentation with Alpine indicates that, at the single folder level, it's not a problem for Alpine: Alpine can view a huge folder within a couple seconds the first time, instantly from then on. My (probably temporary) problem with Alpine is finding and committing to muscle memory tactics to replace my Kmail/Claws chops that sped my workflow. I might end up using Alpine for my daily emailing activities, and some other program to act as a sort of "file manager" for my IMAP server. I think Steffen Kaiser's last email went a long way toward pointing me in the right direction in Alpine operations, especially his link to the IMAP specification. I'll be working with his suggestions over the next couple days. And of course I still need to investigate Mutt. Thanks everyone! SteveT Steve Litt November 2016 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, Steve Litt wrote:> from then on. My (probably temporary) problem with Alpine is finding and > committing to muscle memory tactics to replace my Kmail/Claws chops > that sped my workflow. I might end up using Alpine for my daily > emailing activities, and some other program to act as a sort of "file > manager" for my IMAP server.*** I would say, Alpine is something as vim. Until you use it daily, you think "how one can work with this", but as soon as you learn it, you find it perfect simple, fast but effective (as vim:-)).> And of course I still need to investigate Mutt.*** I would tell here the Mutt vs Alpine is nearly similar to Vim vs Emacs:-D I am unable to use mutt, but I love alpine:-) And I work with vim and cannot remember all shortcuts of emacs. These sentences do not mean that emacs or mutt are worse than alpine and vim!:) And of course, once you create your perfect alpine (or vim) configuration, you keep it for years (I use nearly the same vim, alpine and windowmaker config for about 15 years:-D). Regards, Robert Wolf.
On 11/18/2016 1:50 PM, Steve Litt <slitt at troubleshooters.com> wrote:> On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 08:14:02 -0500 > Tanstaafl <tanstaafl at libertytrek.org> wrote: >> On 11/17/2016 10:58 AM, Steve Litt <slitt at troubleshooters.com> wrote: >>> I have over 620K emails in over 1000 folders. This turns Thunderbird >>> into an all day affair, just to refresh its caches. >> >> There are lots of knobs you can tweak to improve the situation, but >> the bottom line is - 1,000 folders (really?!?), 650,000 emails - >> well... this is going to be a problem for almost any client.> It wasn't a problem for Kmail, before the disastrous conversion to > Kmail2. It wasn't a problem with Claws-Mail (I'm leaving Claws for > non-technical reasons).Let me clarify - I have no way of knowing if Thunderbird would choke due to the incredibly large number of folders. The number of emails is much less the problem. I have maybe 50 folders, and maybe 200,000 total emails, and don't have any performance issues, unless (and even then they are minor and temporary) I'm setting up a new/fresh profile (takes a while for header downloads), or repairing a folder with a lot of messages. I'm trying for the life of me to see a use case for anywhere close to 1,000 folders, and am failing. That would be a major problem just from the human side. How do you find anything? But, to each their own, you must have a way of dealing with it that suits you.
On Nov 22, 2016, at 7:48 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl at libertytrek.org> wrote:> I'm trying for the life of me to see a use case for anywhere close to > 1,000 folders, and am failing. That would be a major problem just from > the human side. How do you find anything?I can see it, though I think it?s excessive. List Mail Dovecot 2011-06 2011-07 2011-08 ? 2016-11 Postfix 2001-09 2001-10 ? 2016-11 (repeat for a hundred lists. Add folders for each friend or family member. Add folders for ever domain that sends mail. It?s certainly possible, and someone might even convince themselves it?s ?organized?.)
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 09:48:11 -0500 Tanstaafl <tanstaafl at libertytrek.org> wrote:> I'm trying for the life of me to see a use case for anywhere close to > 1,000 folders, and am failing. That would be a major problem just from > the human side. How do you find anything?Hierarchy/drilldown. I'm on what, maybe 70 mailing lists like this one. Many I've been on for more than a decade, so I have an OLDFOLDERS folder containing subfolders for each mailing list, each of which have their own subfolder by year. The three email clients I ever used: Eudora (on Windows 98), Kmail and Claws-Mail had a collapsible outline view of all my folders and subfolders, making drilldown trivial. They all also had recursive searches. So 90% of the time, I just went to the current folder for the mailing list. The rest of the time, I used drilldown and recursive search. In less than 1% of cases was I unable to find an email I knew existed. I imagine if I'd started with Alpine, I might have had fewer folders with more messages. But given the ease my past email clients had with viewing my folders as a drillable hierarchy, doing it the way I did it was trivial. And from a human point of view, the best way to organize things is in a hierarchy, like a room of file cabinets, a Linux filesystem, or a computer menu. SteveT Steve Litt November 2016 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz