Mail archiving

Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog at
Fri Sep 6 09:57:37 EST 2002

On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 04:04:08AM +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> You should work for mindcraft, your comparison strategy is similar in
> determining your position.

Not exactly sure what you're referring to here. I was just pointing out that
there *is* a better way of doing it.

> Martijn van Oosterhout (kleptog at wrote:
> > checks in there to ensure that the index file accurately convers changes in
> > the file, but it works fine. Not only that, for me netscape can create an
> > index for a mailbox faster than mutt can open it. Don't ask me why.
> As far as I know, Netscape mailboxes are stored in a proprietary format.

Actually no. At least Unix Netscape 3/4/7 use(d) plain mbox format for its
mail. Even now I can point Netscape Mail at my mutt folders and they will
open fine. I thought the index files were DB hashes but I don't have any
lying around right now.

Hmm, I see now that KMail also has indexes on it's mail folders and the
format looks pretty sane too (plain text). One of these days I'll have to
get the mutt source code and add it.

> If both programs are going through open(2) and read(2) then I think its a
> safe assumption that the time taken to obtain the data in the mailbox is
> roughly identical for both, and determined solely by a third external
> entity - the linux kernel.

Dunno. It was a fairly old machine. Netscape just was twice as fast on a
10MB mailbox.

Have a nice day,
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog at>
> There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that can do binary
> arithmetic and those that can't.

More information about the linux mailing list