|
|
|
@ -40,15 +40,15 @@ PRINCIPLES
|
|
|
|
|
it using sendmail(8), as provided by OpenSMTPD, Postfix, msmtp(1), dma(8)
|
|
|
|
|
or similar. mblaze expects your mail to reside in Maildir folders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mblaze operates directly on Maildir and doesn't use caches or database.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no setup needed for many uses. All tools have been written with
|
|
|
|
|
performance in mind. Enumeration of all mails in a Maildir is avoided
|
|
|
|
|
unless necessary, and then optimized to use few syscalls. Parsing mail
|
|
|
|
|
metadata is optimized to use few I/O requests. Initial operations on big
|
|
|
|
|
Maildir may feel slow, but as soon as they are in cache, everything is
|
|
|
|
|
blazing fast. The tools are written to be memory efficient (i.e. not
|
|
|
|
|
wasteful), but whole messages are assumed to fit into RAM easily (at a
|
|
|
|
|
time).
|
|
|
|
|
mblaze operates directly on Maildir and doesn't use own caches or
|
|
|
|
|
databases. There is no setup needed for many uses. All tools have been
|
|
|
|
|
written with performance in mind. Enumeration of all mails in a Maildir
|
|
|
|
|
is avoided unless necessary, and then optimized to use few syscalls.
|
|
|
|
|
Parsing mail metadata is optimized to use few I/O requests. Initial
|
|
|
|
|
operations on big Maildir may feel slow, but as soon as they are in file
|
|
|
|
|
system cache, everything is blazing fast. The tools are written to be
|
|
|
|
|
memory efficient (i.e. not wasteful), but whole messages are assumed to
|
|
|
|
|
fit into RAM easily (at a time).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mblaze has been written from scratch and tested on a big pile of personal
|
|
|
|
|
mail, but is not actually 100% RFC conforming (which is neither worth it
|
|
|
|
|