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. poc _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
