Yup, churning away now

Post #318,313 by drook 12/8/09 6:58:40 PM Reply	Yup, churning away now Set the second one up by IP. Copying/moving from the old to the new. Time to find out if the read/unread flag moves with it, or if everything gets marked read in the move. I'm assuming IMAP figures that out properly. Man, this is slow. -- Drew
Post #318,314 by folkert 12/8/09 9:31:19 PM Reply	IMAP Keeps what the Clients sets. Whatever client you are using to move the mail is the important part there. Remember, you are moving the mail twice. Personally, if you have the IMAP dir on your own host... I'd tar and scp the file up and do it once. But then, I'm a sysadmin, not a "pretty much user".
Post #318,315 by drook 12/8/09 9:44:51 PM Reply	Don't have access to the source I also don't trust Evolution to download everything, since it's got that reported bug. I'm showing 221M in my local imap dir, but my old host is reporting over 450M. So I just grabbed a bunch of folders and dragged them over to the new account before dinner. It's still grinding. -- Drew
Post #318,318 by folkert 12/8/09 9:56:22 PM Reply	Re: Don't have access to the source Evolution now stores in SQLite format. Much more betterer on disk space and quickness. I've only had Evo screw up on me... 7 or so years ago. Mostly my own doing. I've used Evolution nearly continuously since then. Thunderbird IMO SUCKS!
Post #318,316 by static 12/8/09 9:49:07 PM Reply	No, IMAP-to-IMAP transfer is safer. The IMAP protocol is actually quite rigid and rather unforgiving of mistakes. IMAP isn't an on-disk format. Tarballing the directory would only be effective if the mail engines are identical. This means both the delivery agent and the IMAP server: I know Courier's IMAP server stores information in the Maildir directories that other Maildir-aware IMAP servers will probably not know about. In fact, rsync would be better than a tarball because the file-timestamps would then stay correct. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #318,317 by folkert 12/8/09 9:54:22 PM Reply	Re: No, IMAP-to-IMAP transfer is safer. Oh I know that IMAP is a protocol. I just use courier-imap server to courier-imap server. Also, Drew, you could have setup your destination machine as a mail client and did the work with something like Mutt, so it only gets transferred once.
Post #318,320 by drook 12/9/09 12:04:04 AM Reply	If I cared about fast or efficient, sure But since I was setting up two accounts in Evo anyway, drag and drop -- as slow as it is -- works just fine for me. -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!