[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 18:54 +0100, Gordon Henderson wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, James Fidell wrote: > > > Gordon Henderson wrote: > > > >> Seriously - you're solving the wrong problem. Thunderbird is obviously a > >> pile of croc if it's running at 1-2GB for a days run. It's only an email > >> client FFS. > > > > I'm happy to consider alternatives... > > OK - I admit I know almost zero about GUI enabled email programs. I'm > still using a text-only one. It's currently using 28MB of RAM which I > still think is too much, but it has been running for a few weeks now and I > do have some very big mail folders. (some over a GB or 2) > > But even so - Outlook isn't as bad as that, is it? I can not imagine that > someone had written an outlook looka-a-like for Linux and make it more > bloated than Outlook. Evolution here is running at 67mb currently, with 2mb for the extra alarm process, exchange storage and data server (whatever the heck they are or indeed are doing) System has been up a 10days since last kernel update (I think that was the reason for a reboot). Not sure on the total mail numbers or mailbox size without more digging than I care to atm, but there are a few in there. dclug alone is 11k+ -- John Williams My linux blog of notes and guides http://subbass.blogspot.com/ -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html