Try evolution, it's a great (free like beer) client.
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 02:12, Ray Tran wrote:
> I use kmail/kde3.1 at home, and I have noticed exactly the same variable
> performance. If I use a different mail client to the same servers, then
> the performance is consistently quick. I
On December 5, 2003 5:12 am, Ray Tran wrote:
> I use kmail/kde3.1 at home, and I have noticed exactly the same variable
Good to know that someone else is seeing the problem. I couldn't imagine
giving up kmail! :-) So, I suppose the next step is a quick 'kill -3' on
James the next time it's block
Ok, but anyhow you should exclude the james directories from online virusscan access,
as it simply doesn't work as is with James (if it finds an infected message it will
simply cause an IOException to be thrown by James, instead of having it manage
properly the infected message).
Vincenzo
> --
I use kmail/kde3.1 at home, and I have noticed exactly the same variable
performance. If I use a different mail client to the same servers, then
the performance is consistently quick. I don't know why kmail is inconsistent,
and my colleague who is a KDE developer can't explain it either but it is.
Never done it, but looking at the code for
org.apache.james.services.UsersRepository.updateUser()...
...might help.
thank you very much... I am an idiot :o)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands,
We are aware of the overhead imposed by viruscan, and we tested both with and without
it. Even without McAfee, the numbers are still bad, and the exceptions are still
there.
The data we have seems to show that Windows SMTP doesn't suffer from the presence of
virusscan because it leaves plenty o
Do also disable McAfee online access scan, as it may add a big overload and *it is
not* the right way to use virusscan, because it may be scanning every file going in
and out from the spool directories. McAfee virusscan may have special code to deal
with MS SMTP in the correct way, and has no sp
