I've got large stores of emails on my personal computer from mailing lists like this one.
I'm finding that Evolution is slow to process incoming mail when filtering spam and it runs with a high nice priority that seems to hog the CPU sometimes when I am multi tasking.
I installed Thunderbird on a friends Windows PC the other day and it looked pretty spiffy. How does it compare to Evolution ? Is it robust enough to handle really large email archives ?
Thanks.
On [Sat Dec 30 17:15], Kim Lux wrote:
I've got large stores of emails on my personal computer from mailing lists like this one.
I'm finding that Evolution is slow to process incoming mail when filtering spam and it runs with a high nice priority that seems to hog the CPU sometimes when I am multi tasking.
I installed Thunderbird on a friends Windows PC the other day and it looked pretty spiffy. How does it compare to Evolution ? Is it robust enough to handle really large email archives ?
for email thunderbird is much faster in startup (ok, my mail archive is 500MB, in many files and some sub-directories), but there is ONE big drawback that Thunderbird 2.0 hasn't solved surprisingly: it doesn't easily work with classic mbox files. There was some story about a plugin , but it's VERY laborious and what I love about evolution is that i can rsync my Mail directory at work with the laptop and then do offline reading (and even replying, though you then distribute your mail archive over two places...). Evolution will happily allow you to use a symbolic link to a tree that contain all kinds of mbox files.
In thunderbird mail has to be imported, and it will create a msf (some index) file. It's even more complicated with a directory that contains mbox files. I was able to sort of do this manually, but it's high maintenance to keep my tree now up to sync. Yuck.
It's not as bad as apple's mail, where from each message in a mail file it creates a new file!! That's gotta super ineffient, i was totally surprised by this at the time and that was just one of the many reasons macosx fails to just work for me.
- peter
On 12/30/06, Kim Lux lux@diesel-research.com wrote:
I've got large stores of emails on my personal computer from mailing lists like this one.
I'm finding that Evolution is slow to process incoming mail when filtering spam and it runs with a high nice priority that seems to hog the CPU sometimes when I am multi tasking.
I installed Thunderbird on a friends Windows PC the other day and it looked pretty spiffy. How does it compare to Evolution ? Is it robust enough to handle really large email archives ?
Thanks.
Hi, I use Thunderbird, with my inbox of 858 Mbytes, works great!, evolution has other features that thunderbird no, like calendar. I use for the lists Gmail, wich is great as it manage the conversations just great!
hope this helps.
Guillermo.
-- Kim Lux, Diesel Research Inc.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:15:26 -0700 Kim Lux lux@diesel-research.com wrote:
I installed Thunderbird on a friends Windows PC the other day and it looked pretty spiffy. How does it compare to Evolution ? Is it robust enough to handle really large email archives ?
Don't know about large mailboxes, but I tried Sylpheed-claws (its in extras) and liked it better than any of the other mailers I've tried so far. (I especially like that it won't display html mail unless I go to a lot of trouble to install an html plugin, which I haven't done since I don't want to see that crap, and especially don't want to inform the spammers that I opened their mail because the html referenced some external link :-).
Tom Horsley wrote:
... and especially don't want to inform the spammers that I opened their mail because the html referenced some external link :-).
Not that you want to switch, but Mozilla clients (Seamonkey or TB) have a menu option to display mail as "Original HTML", "Simple HTML" or "Plain text". The "Simple" mode will preserve most formatting or embedded graphics but will not load any remote resources. Javascript is disabled by default for email. HTML messages are too common and too useful for me to completely do without. At least I have some reasonable control over it.
I've been very happy with Mozilla email for a long time. They're not super fantastic, but they're good enough, with no real killer problems. Evo, every time I've tried it, has shown some kind of problem that I just didn't want to deal with.
<Joe
Hello, Kim - I used Evolution for a couple months, but it didn't have 3 features that I required. So, I recently switched to Thunderbird; granted, there's no calendar/to-do feature, but it definitely suits my needs.
I get about 300 emails/day, and have 10 maillist filters. Seems quick enough. I haven't collected enough mail to say how it is with large directories.
Tom Horsley wrote:
(I especially like that it won't display html mail unless I go to a lot of trouble to install an html plugin, which I haven't done since I don't want to see that crap, and especially don't want to inform the spammers that I opened their mail because the html referenced some external link :-).
Thunderbird is really nice with that issue - by default, it won't load images unless the from: is in your address book!
I have been a long time user of Thunderbird and previous mozilla projects... I like it...
I have only started recently using Evolution for a calendar. The calendar plugin in thunderbird is not as nice. but e-mail is still full thunderbird...
I have it accessing 4 pop3 accounts, and one account that I just decomissioned had 12 e-mail filters based on source and destination. I am on several mailman listserves and have e-mails for specific purposes eg volunteering, work, personal....
Thunderbird does the job for me. I also like it's SPAM filtering. If your ISP has spamassasin settings then thunderbird will filter your junk e-mail and learn on the fly what to add to junk e-mail and delete them or relocate them.
Then there are the extensions... and well that where you have to research.
have Fun
Kim Lux wrote:
I've got large stores of emails on my personal computer from mailing lists like this one.
I'm finding that Evolution is slow to process incoming mail when filtering spam and it runs with a high nice priority that seems to hog the CPU sometimes when I am multi tasking.
I installed Thunderbird on a friends Windows PC the other day and it looked pretty spiffy. How does it compare to Evolution ? Is it robust enough to handle really large email archives ?
Thanks.
Kim Lux wrote:
I installed Thunderbird on a friends Windows PC the other day and it looked pretty spiffy. How does it compare to Evolution ? Is it robust enough to handle really large email archives ?
I handle my mail via IMAP with some large e-mail archives (>10,000 messages in a folder), and Thunderbird is just fine. In my experience it seems (as a user) to have one of the more robust IMAP implementations compared to other clients.
However I also used (and still do, a bit) Sylpheed/Sylpheed Claws for a long time. These are great mail clients which are fast, immensely configurable, lighter than Thunderbird and very powerful. They feel a bit more "power-user", meaning there are a huge number of options. However they are still fairly straightforward to set up for simple uses. They are more awkward than Thunderbird to set up if you want multiple sending addresses though (you have to set up an account for each, unless it's recently changed). They are in Fedora Extras.
Tim
Kim Lux wrote:
I'm finding that Evolution is slow to process incoming mail when filtering spam and it runs with a high nice priority that seems to hog the CPU sometimes when I am multi tasking.
One option you might want to look into (although it would mean some configuration) is to download your e-mail separately from your mail client. If you set up something like fetchmail + postfix (or sendmail if you must) + SpamAssassin + procmail, then mail will trickle in to your machine periodically and be filtered in the background. When you open up a mail client, it's already there and filtered.
You could also add in Dovecot to "publish" the e-mails over IMAP. That would mean that Dovecot is responsible for storing your e-mails, not your mail client, and means that you can switch mail clients and have all your e-mail Just There and working.
Hope this helps,
James.
James Wilkinson wrote:
Kim Lux wrote:
I'm finding that Evolution is slow to process incoming mail when filtering spam and it runs with a high nice priority that seems to hog the CPU sometimes when I am multi tasking.
One option you might want to look into (although it would mean some configuration) is to download your e-mail separately from your mail client. If you set up something like fetchmail + postfix (or sendmail if you must) + SpamAssassin + procmail, then mail will trickle in to your machine periodically and be filtered in the background. When you open up a mail client, it's already there and filtered.
You could also add in Dovecot to "publish" the e-mails over IMAP. That would mean that Dovecot is responsible for storing your e-mails, not your mail client, and means that you can switch mail clients and have all your e-mail Just There and working.
Hope this helps,
James.
This is the exact problem I have. Evolution is a really bad program in my book.
First, do you have imap access or even pop access to your mail server? We don't, we have to use Evolution-Connector. Talk to your IT staff.
If you do, then just use Thunderbird. I wish we did.
I use Evolution to get my mail and move it to an export box. Then I save the messages and open them in Thunderbird. This is about 3 times faster than letting Evolution move and sort my mail from the exchange server. This is the first thing that worked since the change in December, at least the way I want. I am still looking at options to continue using Thunderbird with our non-imap/non-pop server.
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 14:56 -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
First, do you have imap access or even pop access to your mail server? We don't, we have to use Evolution-Connector. Talk to your IT staff.
If you do, then just use Thunderbird. I wish we did.
I use Evolution to get my mail and move it to an export box. Then I save the messages and open them in Thunderbird. This is about 3 times faster than letting Evolution move and sort my mail from the exchange server. This is the first thing that worked since the change in December, at least the way I want. I am still looking at options to continue using Thunderbird with our non-imap/non-pop server.
Not sure you're comparing apples to apples here. Evolution is much faster in imap mode against an exchange server with imap enabled than it is with the same server in exchange-connector mode (but of course it doesn't get the calendar that way). Evolution seems a lot faster to me than thunderbird at things like flipping between threaded and non-threaded views of a large mailbox.
On Jan 9, 2007, at 8:52 AM, James Wilkinson wrote:
Kim Lux wrote:
I'm finding that Evolution is slow to process incoming mail when filtering spam and it runs with a high nice priority that seems to hog the CPU sometimes when I am multi tasking.
One option you might want to look into (although it would mean some configuration) is to download your e-mail separately from your mail client. If you set up something like fetchmail + postfix (or sendmail if you must) + SpamAssassin + procmail, then mail will trickle in to your machine periodically and be filtered in the background. When you open up a mail client, it's already there and filtered.
You could also add in Dovecot to "publish" the e-mails over IMAP. That would mean that Dovecot is responsible for storing your e-mails, not your mail client, and means that you can switch mail clients and have all your e-mail Just There and working.
or you can use mutt via ssh instead of installing dovecot