I HATE Evolution ! Thunderbird ?

[Craig White]

On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 08:41 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 18:42 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 11:56 -0700, Dan Thurman wrote:
> > > On Monday 09 June 2008 11:08:46 am linuxguy wrote:
> > > > I've been using Evolution as my email client since RH8.  I hate it
> > > > because it seems to get confused if one opens up an email or changes
> > > > [snip!]
> > > > Is anyone using Thunderbird like this ?  How does it compare ?  How hard
> > > > is it to move over to it ?
> > > > Thanks
> > > 
> > > 1) I have had the same sort of problems (and more) with Evolution
> > >     and I got tired of it.  The hard part is getting it all configured
> > >     correctly. But even then, it is a resource hog as you mentioned,
> > >     but what pissed me off mostly was bugs, crashes, and manually
> > >     killing the processes when things go wrong with evo.
> > > 
> > > 2) I have tried Kmail and again, it has it's own set of problems,
> > >     one involving threads, and it is SLOW depending on your MB.
> > >     I am using an Intel dual-proc Core-Duo w/2GB ram and it is slow
> > >     only because it needs to sync and process each email messages
> > >     if you enable thread support.  It seems faster without threading
> > >     enabled. By threading, I mean email threading.  I LOVE the versatility
> > >     of configuring the Fonts for each gui panes.  Very nice.  This is my
> > >     current email client. As with Thunderbird, when you click on a folder,
> > >     it is at this point where synchronization to the server gets updated and
> > >     you have to wait until it is finished - the CPU hits hard, slowing things
> > >     down, so you are somewhat forced to wait before beginning the next
> > >     step.  I wish that this process is done automatically, is niced, and
> > >     happens transparently, but it is what it is.
> > > 
> > > 3) I have successfully configured and tried Thunderbird and I do like it
> > >     but it is not as versatile/configurable as Kmail, imo.  I ran into trouble
> > >     initially with configuring since it was 'different' than what I was used
> > >     to and had to get used to the idea of 'expunge' and emtpying the 'trash',
> > >     a two-step process.  With Kmail, I just have to empty the trash but then
> > >     I set the configuration to empty the trash on exit.  Pretty minor.
> > > 
> > > In all three cases above, my biggest problem was connecting to M$ exchange
> > > as my main email server - I had to configure exchange to ALLOW connections
> > > but once I got through this correctly, it all worked well.
> > > 
> > > FWIW,
> > ----
> > FWIW - I use Evolution and have used it for years and I get A LOT of
> > e-mail.
> > 
> > The only issue I have ever had with Evolution and slow/crashing was when
> > I turned on 'junk mail filtering' as that tends to really drag it
> > down...perhaps they've improved that aspect because I haven't used it
> > for years.
> > 
> > If I was dealing with Exchange server, I surely would be using Evolution
> > and the Exchange connector.
> > 
> > Craig
> > 
> I agree with Craig. I have never had the above problems with evolution.
> But I havwe never tried to manage 150,000 e-mails locally.
----
since it's IMAP, you're not really managing 150,000 local e-mails but
rather it's only a local cache that is continually rebuilt.

I think the OP has to consider that the strategies that work well for
Gmail probably are less effective when trying to attach to Gmail's mail
repository via a local IMAP client and will strain any/all client
applications.

The main issue that I was pointing out was that several versions ago
(Fedora/Evolution), I would get some hanging due to using 'Junk Mail
Filtering' on my IMAP mailbox which was mostly unnecessary as their are
effective junk mail rules on my mail server and turning junk mail
filtering off in Evolution solved it. 

Craig