> --Rich P.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 11:42:20PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:08 PM, Derek Martin wrote:
> > 
> > Let me make myself clear: mbox DOES NOT suck.  Just every
> > implementation of it that exists does.
> 
> But I never claimed that mbox sucks.  

Yes, you did:

On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 02:32:19PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Derek Martin wrote:
> > 
> > And you can't even conceive that this is caused by a problem with the
> > implementation, rather than the file format?
> 
> Large mbox files * heavy disk I/O = connection timeouts and lock
> problems.  I've seen it on a variety of different POP and IMAP
> servers and clients.  To answer your question: while that
> possibility exists I still point my finger at mbox because it
> doesn't scale with the way that some users work.

In practice, implementers of mbox -- at least in free software -- have
always traded performance for simplicity.  Your statement, "[mbox] doesn't
scale with the way that some users work," is false.  But the devil is
in the details.  Whether or not better implementations exist in
practice, the problems you are encountering are still 
implementation-dependent.  It's quite possible, and even somewhat
likely, that some commercial mail platforms have had a more optimized
implementation, but I don't have any experience with any of them to
know one way or another. 

The one clear win that maildir has over mbox is that it's much simpler
to write a good implementation.  

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.