Subject: does pine cache info about the inbox? big ramble

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:24:43 -0800 (PST)

Does pine cache info about the inbox?

I'm just wondering why the few GUI email clients I've used take FOREVER to
open my mailbox, but pine does it very quickly.  I had hope with the new
Eudora version that supports IMAP, since the previous Eudora Lights I had
used were nice and quick..  But it took MINUTES to get the 900-something 
messages on the server.. and I had to nuke the Inbox file it had and redo
it since it originally didn't have enough memory and unhelpfully gave me
a gazillion error messages, so I had to quit it -- and it ended up with
partially downloaded (or cached or whatever -- yes I'm using IMAP) messages
where I had the headers but couldn't get it to display some of the messages.

ANYWAY -- sorry for the ramble..  I'm just wondering if I'm being deluded
into thinking pine isn't caching all of the inbox.. Is it?  If not, why is
it a zillion times faster than Eudora or OE?  (From my first use of this
new Eudora with the light/pay/ad model, I actually think I may prefer OE when
I have to use a GUI client.)
--
[email-masked]

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/pine/pine-info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:42:31 -0800 (PST)

Are you running PC-Pine on your local PC, or are you telnetting in to a
unix box and running unix Pine?  If you're doing the latter, that's why
it's so fast - all the work of loading the inbox is performed over the
very fast connections at the mail server end, whereas the other programs
you're using have to download the entire inbox over your slower internet
connection.

-- 
Scott Leibrand
[email-masked]
http://students.washington.edu/leibrand
* RCW 19.190 notice: This email address is located in Washington State. *
* Unsolicited commercial email may be billed $500 per message.          *

---

From: Andy Malato <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 19:14:32 -0500

Not only should we consider the fast connections on the mail server end, but
also consider that when pine reads a users /var/mail file its a local file, so
pine doesn't have to download anything, its just like opening a file in a text
editor.  

PC-PINE I have noticed to be somewhat slower than other windows email clients,
but maybe with 4.10 its much faster!

	---Andy

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:36:04 -0800 (PST)

>pine doesn't have to download anything, its just like opening a file in a text

Wait, I'm talking about IMAP, and it's NOT on the same machine I'm running
pine on..

ohwell, I guess I started a big rambling discussion..

---

From: Andy Malato <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 20:58:14 -0500

> Wait, I'm talking about IMAP, and it's NOT on the same machine I'm running

IMAP running on a different machine should still be fast, considering its on the
same local network as your PINE machine.  Also IMAP is a bit faster than POP,
because of the fact it only downloads message headers and not that actual message
until you select that message for reading, as where the POP protocol downloads all
messages out of var/mail and removes them off the server by default.

I don't know why PINE is faster at doing this, but I do belive it is probably
because PINE was designed with IMAP capabilites in mind, where as other programs
such as outlook were designed for POP.  I hope that says enough.

> ohwell, I guess I started a big rambling discussion..

Well that's how we all become a bit smarter and its a learning experience for all
:)

        ---Andy