I found why Thunderbird was inexorably slow for months on Linux with Gmail IMAP

[Dave D. Richards]

SOLVED: Thunderbird 31.4.0 is inexorably slow on Gmail IMAP viewing of incoming mail.

For months, Thunderbird 31.4.0 has been almost unusable simply reading my mail.
I'd press on a mail, and the previous mail would show for many seconds (sometimes
ten seconds, twenty seconds, a minute or more sometimes). This is even for
simple one line text mails, in addition to anything with attachments.

Basically, Thunderbird was useless.

I tried all the basic tricks, but none did anything.

1. I compacted the MBOX files as per
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/compacting-folders

2. I changed the settings for storage:
Edit > Preferences > Advanced > Network & Disk Space

3. I rebuilt the global database (aka Gloda):
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/rebuilding-global-database

4. I manually detached all attachments from the SENT folder.
(What a pain to have to do this manually; I don't recommend it!)

5. I wiped out my old profile directory ($HOME/.thunderbird)
to create a new one as per:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profiles-tb

All these things made only a very minor dent, if any, in the inordinate
time it was taking Thunderbird to load a message, on a powerful enough
machine that wasn't overloaded.

Finally, I hit upon the real problem and solution.
All my gmail was in my inbox.
So, I archived everthing (a few thousand messages).

Voila!

The very next time I opened Thunderbird, it behaved well again.
I'm not sure if there was *anything* that could have been done in Thunderbird
to ameliorate the situation. Are you?

[Bob Henson]

There was nothing Thunderbird could do. It was nothing to do with
Thunderbird at all. Not was is anything to do with Gmail. Thunderbird
works just fine with Gmail.

What is sure, is that regardless of which e-mail client you are using
and which service provider/mail host the one way to screw things up is,
and always has been, to leave loads of mail in the Inbox. Read it,
delete it, or save it to another directory. Automatically move it to
other directories, if you will. Just don't leave it in the Inbox.

On that topic, another rule to avoid trouble is to never have
subdirectories directly off the Inbox.


--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

Licentiae, quam stulti libertatem vocabant - Tacitus

[g]

On 03/22/2015 11:19 PM, Dave D. Richards wrote:
> SOLVED: Thunderbird 31.4.0 is inexorably slow on Gmail IMAP
> viewing of incoming mail.
<>

> All these things made only a very minor dent, if any, in the
> inordinate time it was taking Thunderbird to load a message,
> on a powerful enough machine that wasn't overloaded.
>
> Finally, I hit upon the real problem and solution.
> All my gmail was in my inbox.
> So, I archived everthing (a few thousand messages).

good to see you found the problem.

something to consider, do not leave messages in Inbox and do keep
all mail boxes compacted.

there have been many post about Inbox problems and most all have
been cured when Inbox size is reduced by moving emails and by
compacting.

Inbox size grows not only by addition of emails, but also due
to emails being deleted or moved and Inbox not being compacted.

when an email is deleted or moved, there is still a non viewable
message in the Inbox file. compacting is the only way to actually
reduce size of file.

when any mail folder file is read by thunderbird, each entry
header has to be read and acted on, be it a viewable or non
viewable "moved" or "deleted" email.

> The very next time I opened Thunderbird, it behaved well again.
> I'm not sure if there was *anything* that could have been done
> in Thunderbird to ameliorate the situation. Are you?

filtering or moving emails to other folders comes to mind.
compacting the other.


--

peace out.

in a world with out fences, who needs gates.

CentOS GNU/Linux 6.6

tc,hago.

g
.

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/23/2015 4:51 AM, Bob Henson <rh54...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is sure, is that regardless of which e-mail client you are using
> and which service provider/mail host the one way to screw things up is,
> and always has been, to leave loads of mail in the Inbox. Read it,
> delete it, or save it to another directory. Automatically move it to
> other directories, if you will. Just don't leave it in the Inbox.

While I agree with the principle of keeping your Inbox clean, having
thousands of messages in there will NOT cause general slowness like
this. I know, because we have many users here who have 10,000 to 50,000
messages in their Inbox. Is it slower than it would be without that
many? Sure. But it is entirely usable, nothing like the issue Dave was
describing.

> On that topic, another rule to avoid trouble is to never have
> subdirectories directly off the Inbox.

FUD, many of our users have been doing this for years, no issues whatsoever.

[Bob Henson]

Over many years, with different e-mail clients, I have seen
personally/heard of problems caused by both many times. We disagree.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

My wife has a slight impediment in her speech. Every now and then she
stops to breathe.

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/23/2015 7:40 AM, Bob Henson <rh54...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/03/2015 10:35 am, Tanstaafl wrote:

>> While I agree with the principle of keeping your Inbox clean, having
>> thousands of messages in there will NOT cause general slowness like
>> this. I know, because we have many users here who have 10,000 to 50,000
>> messages in their Inbox. Is it slower than it would be without that
>> many? Sure. But it is entirely usable, nothing like the issue Dave was
>> describing.
>>
>>> On that topic, another rule to avoid trouble is to never have
>>> subdirectories directly off the Inbox.
>>
>> FUD, many of our users have been doing this for years, no issues whatsoever.

> Over many years, with different e-mail clients, I have seen
> personally/heard of problems caused by both many times.

We are talking specifically about Thunderbird, not 'different email
clients'...

Yes, I agree that under some conditions, having a large Inbox can be
problematic.

If the server in questions also stores messages that are in subfolders
of the Inbox inside the Inbox (ie, uses the mbox format on the server or
something similar), then again, yes, those can cause problems too.

But when talking about a decently designed mail server (dovecot?), it
really isn't a problem.

Yes, I've had to rebuild folders (including the Inbox) in Thunderbird
before, but again, over 13+ years using Thunderbird, and 50+ users many
of whom have large (some even approaching 100,000 messages for years)
Inboxes, and many more who have lots of subfolders of the Inbox (I'm not
a fan of this either and do discourage it), in general, it just isn't
that big of a problem.

> We disagree.

Isn't freedom grand? ;)

[Wolf K.]

On 2015-03-23 12:19 AM, Dave D. Richards wrote:
[...]

> Finally, I hit upon the real problem and solution.
> All my gmail was in my inbox.

> So, I archived everything (a few thousand messages).

I Delete most e-mails within a day or two of reading them. Their content
is rarely worth keeping beyond that.

However:
If you need to archive messages for business or legal reasons, this is
what I do:
a) set up a separate folder for each project/transaction/etc. These must
be outside the Inbox.
b) create filters to automatically move the relevant messages to these
folder.
c) manually move messages that the filters miss.
d) from time to time Copy the /Mail folder (inside Profiles) to a safe
place (external HDD, for example). Rename by adding the date
(Mail-yyyy-mm-dd). (If you choose to use Thunderbird's archiving, Copy
the Archives folder.)

> Voila!
>
> The very next time I opened Thunderbird, it behaved well again.

> I'm not sure if there was*anything* that could have been done in Thunderbird

> to ameliorate the situation. Are you?

Well, you just did it. Just make sure you Compact Folders regularly.

--
Best,
Wolf K.
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca

[Dave D. Richards]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:51:29 +0000, Bob Henson wrote:

> On that topic, another rule to avoid trouble is to never have
> subdirectories directly off the Inbox.

What exactly does that mean, in terms of Gmail & Thunderbird?

>From Thunderbird, on Linux, I couldn't figure out how to 'Archive' my
Gmail inbox messages; so I resorted to logging into the web (ugh) Gmail
interface, and archiving there.

While on that web interface, I can, if I want to, create 'Folders'.
Are those Gmail 'Folders' what you're talking about when you say never
have subdirectories?

Or, are you talking about inside of Thunderbird, not to have folders?

[Bob Henson]

As subdirectories off your Inbox, neither local nor on-line. If you are
using IMAP, creating one will create the other.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

Heaven is where the police are British, the mechanics German, the cooks
are French, the lovers Italian, and all is organized by the Swiss.
Hell is where the police are German, the mechanics are French, the cooks
are British, the lovers are Swiss, and it's all organized by the Italians!

[Bob Henson]

I do almost exactly the same as you. I use Xpunge extension - with the
Multi-Xpunge button on the menu bar. That way you can either automate
the deletions and the compaction, or just click the button when you
think about it - which it what I do. Like you, I have directories for
separate transactions, and another directory with subdirectories for
mailing lists - and they all get cleaned and compacted regularly.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

An honest politician is one who, once bought, stays bought.

[Dave D. Richards]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:20:19 -0500, g wrote:

>> I'm not sure if there was *anything* that could have been done
>> in Thunderbird to ameliorate the situation. Are you?
>
> filtering or moving emails to other folders comes to mind.
> compacting the other.

If I create a "folder" using the Linux Thunderbird MUA (IMAP),
does it automagically *create* that same folder if I were to read
my mail in the Gmail web client?

And, vice versa ... if I create a folder using the Gmail web MUA,
does it automatically create that folder when I read my mail on
Thunderbird in the Thunderbird MUA on Linux?

I would think not, which means my mail wouldn't be synchronized.
Right?

[Dave D. Richards]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:20:42 -0400, Wolf K. wrote:

> If you need to archive messages for business or legal reasons, this is
> what I do:
> a) set up a separate folder for each project/transaction/etc. These must
> be outside the Inbox.

I don't understand what it means to be "outside the inbox".

My thunderbird has no folders yet, since I use the dumbest organizational
method there is, which is to read my mail backward, and anything not on the
screen is essentially not in my queue.

If it's bold black, I haven't read it yet.
Otherwise it's not bold.

That's pretty much it for my organizational system (yes, I know, it's
primitive).

If I were to create folders, how would I create the two types of folder?

Q: How do you create an inbox folder?
Q: How do you create a folder outside the inbox?

BTW, I can easily create folders in Thunderbird; I just don't understand
what the difference is between an "inbox folder" and a regular "folder".

[Dave D. Richards]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:40:29 +0000, Bob Henson wrote:

> Over many years, with different e-mail clients, I have seen
> personally/heard of problems caused by both many times. We disagree.

I have one question about this "folder" thing (which confuses me), mainly,
I guess, because I never touch the web-based Gmail client (except in
emergencies) - so all my mail is/was flat - in the inbox.

GMAIL WEB CLIENT:
- I abhor web-based MUAs, but, if I were to log into Gmail from Firefox,
I could easily create a "folder" to put messages into. If I did that,
what would Thunderbird subsequently see?

Q: Does Thunderbird "see" the Gmail folders or just the inbox?

THUNDERBIRD LINUX CLIENT:
- Likewise, on Linux, I could easily create "folders" to put my mail into.
I don't think Gmail sees them (right?); but does Thunderbird then tell
the Gmail client to store the same message in the same folder?

Q: Does Thunderbird's organization have any communication with Gmail's?

[Dave D. Richards]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 06:35:48 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> While I agree with the principle of keeping your Inbox clean, having
> thousands of messages in there will NOT cause general slowness like
> this.

I (think) I understand what you're saying, so, I just ask for clarification.

On POP3, things might be different than on IMAP; but my Gmail is set to IMAP
(I think, by default) because I can access it from my phone, tablet, or computer.

In general, unless it's an emergency, I only use the laptop, which is Linux,
which has Thunderbird. I abhor web-based mail user agents, so, even on the
tablet and phone, I use the Gmail MUA client application.

Given I'm using IMAP, doesn't IMAP 'tag' (somehow) that a message has been
downloaded by a certain MUA? Or is that only with POP?

What confuses me is that, IMAP should have kept track of what was downloaded
already to that Thunderbird client.

So, why would "my" Thunderbird be so utterly slow, as to be almost useless,
with just about 10,000 messages in my Gmail inbox if IMAP was keeping track
of what messages were 'already' downloaded?

[Wolf K.]

On 2015-03-23 10:27 AM, Dave D. Richards wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:20:42 -0400, Wolf K. wrote:
>
>> If you need to archive messages for business or legal reasons, this is
>> what I do:
>> a) set up a separate folder for each project/transaction/etc. These must
>> be outside the Inbox.
>
> I don't understand what it means to be "outside the inbox".

See below.

> My thunderbird has no folders yet, since I use the dumbest organizational
> method there is, which is to read my mail backward, and anything not on the
> screen is essentially not in my queue.
>
> If it's bold black, I haven't read it yet.
> Otherwise it's not bold.
>
> That's pretty much it for my organizational system (yes, I know, it's
> primitive).
>
> If I were to create folders, how would I create the two types of folder?
>
> Q: How do you create an inbox folder?

Inbox is a default folder created by Tbird. AFAIK, with IMAP, the
default is to open in the remote Inbox. I use POP3. I looked into IMAP,
but I like to have my mail on my machine by default. AFAIK, you can set
up IMAP to automatically download your mail to your device(s), you'll
need help from IMAP mavens to do that.

> Q: How do you create a folder outside the inbox?

Right-click on the account name, and choose Create Folder.

> BTW, I can easily create folders in Thunderbird; I just don't understand
> what the difference is between an "inbox folder" and a regular "folder".

"Folders" in Thunderbird are of two kinds:
a) files;
b) folders that contain files.

An example of a "folder" that is actually a file is the Inbox. It
consists of a file Inbox plus an index file named Inbox.msf. Tbird
creates some folders by default. You can't delete these.

When you create a folder, Tbird creates file by that name and an *.msf
file to go with it.

When you create a subfolder within SomeFolder, Tbird creates
SomeFolder.sbd, which is a "regular" folder. Inside it are the original
SomeFolder + SomeFolder.msf, and SubFolder + SubFolder.msf.

The reason for Compacting is that the files become bigger as new
messages are added to the "folders". When you Delete or Move a message,
the *.msf file is updated, but the message is still there. Compacting
deletes the messages, rewrites the "folder" so that it contains only
retained messages, and updates the *.msf file. This can take a long
time, that's the main reason to keep your Inbox (and other folders) as
small as is expedient.

Re: IMAP vs POP3.
I prefer POP3 because its default is to download messages to your
machine (your ISP will retain messages for a while, you should know
their policy). YMMV.

Have a good day,

[Bob Henson]

On 23/03/2015 2:27 pm, Dave D. Richards wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:40:29 +0000, Bob Henson wrote:
>
>> Over many years, with different e-mail clients, I have seen
>> personally/heard of problems caused by both many times. We disagree.
>
> I have one question about this "folder" thing (which confuses me), mainly,
> I guess, because I never touch the web-based Gmail client (except in
> emergencies) - so all my mail is/was flat - in the inbox.
>
> GMAIL WEB CLIENT:
> - I abhor web-based MUAs, but, if I were to log into Gmail from Firefox,
> I could easily create a "folder" to put messages into. If I did that,
> what would Thunderbird subsequently see?
>
> Q: Does Thunderbird "see" the Gmail folders or just the inbox?>

It depends on whether you are using IMAP or not. I don't use IMAP with
Thunderbird (only POP3), but if you create a new directory with Firefox,
it will show up in Thunderbird - or at least it should do if Thunderbird
does IMAP correctly. I made a "save" directory in Gmail whilst on-line
and it shows up on my tablet using IMAP and Aquamail, and on my phone
using IMAP and Samsung's e-mail app and mail put in it is automatically
duplicated.

> THUNDERBIRD LINUX CLIENT:
> - Likewise, on Linux, I could easily create "folders" to put my mail into.
> I don't think Gmail sees them (right?); but does Thunderbird then tell
> the Gmail client to store the same message in the same folder?
>
> Q: Does Thunderbird's organization have any communication with Gmail's?
>

Again, as I understand IMAP, yes, they should appear at the other end
too if Thunderbird interprets IMAP correctly. As far as I know, the
whole of an IMAP tree structure should be duplicated and synchronised at
both ends. If any IMAP experts know better, please speak up - but I'm
sure that's correct.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

Forced to choose between two evils - pick the one you haven't tried before!

[Ed Mullen]

Dave D. Richards wrote on 3/23/2015 10:27 AM:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:40:29 +0000, Bob Henson wrote:
>
>> Over many years, with different e-mail clients, I have seen
>> personally/heard of problems caused by both many times. We disagree.
>
> I have one question about this "folder" thing (which confuses me), mainly,
> I guess, because I never touch the web-based Gmail client (except in
> emergencies) - so all my mail is/was flat - in the inbox.
>
> GMAIL WEB CLIENT:
> - I abhor web-based MUAs, but, if I were to log into Gmail from Firefox,
> I could easily create a "folder" to put messages into. If I did that,
> what would Thunderbird subsequently see?

Assuming you're using IMAP in TB it will see the folder.

>
> Q: Does Thunderbird "see" the Gmail folders or just the inbox?

On IMAP my TB and SeaMonkey see all Gmail folders including those I created.

>
> THUNDERBIRD LINUX CLIENT:
> - Likewise, on Linux, I could easily create "folders" to put my mail into.
> I don't think Gmail sees them (right?); but does Thunderbird then tell
> the Gmail client to store the same message in the same folder?
>
> Q: Does Thunderbird's organization have any communication with Gmail's?
>

I know that a Gmail IMAP account will synchronize with Gmail in both
directions.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Wilf]

On 23/03/2015 2:10 PM, Dave D. Richards wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:20:19 -0500, g wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure if there was *anything* that could have been done
>>> in Thunderbird to ameliorate the situation. Are you?
>>
>> filtering or moving emails to other folders comes to mind.
>> compacting the other.
>
> If I create a "folder" using the Linux Thunderbird MUA (IMAP),
> does it automagically *create* that same folder if I were to read
> my mail in the Gmail web client?
>

Yes, it does.

> And, vice versa ... if I create a folder using the Gmail web MUA,
> does it automatically create that folder when I read my mail on
> Thunderbird in the Thunderbird MUA on Linux?
>

Again, yes, it does.

Gmail labels are mapped to folders in Thunderbird if you are using IMAP.
And vice versa

> I would think not, which means my mail wouldn't be synchronized.
> Right?
>

It synchronises beautifully. I have been using GMAIL with IMAP in
Thunderbird for many years.

--
Wilf

[Ed Mullen]

Wolf K. wrote on 3/23/2015 11:04 AM:
> On 2015-03-23 10:27 AM, Dave D. Richards wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:20:42 -0400, Wolf K. wrote:
>>
>>> If you need to archive messages for business or legal reasons, this is
>>> what I do:
>>> a) set up a separate folder for each project/transaction/etc. These must
>>> be outside the Inbox.
>>
>> I don't understand what it means to be "outside the inbox".
>
> See below.
>
>> My thunderbird has no folders yet, since I use the dumbest organizational
>> method there is, which is to read my mail backward, and anything not
>> on the
>> screen is essentially not in my queue.
>>
>> If it's bold black, I haven't read it yet.
>> Otherwise it's not bold.
>>
>> That's pretty much it for my organizational system (yes, I know, it's
>> primitive).
>>
>> If I were to create folders, how would I create the two types of folder?
>>
>> Q: How do you create an inbox folder?
>
> Inbox is a default folder created by Tbird. AFAIK, with IMAP, the
> default is to open in the remote Inbox. I use POP3. I looked into IMAP,
> but I like to have my mail on my machine by default. AFAIK, you can set
> up IMAP to automatically download your mail to your device(s), you'll
> need help from IMAP mavens to do that.

In TB/IMAP you can select which folders synchronize with the server.
All my mail is on my machine(s). I have three PCs, two smartphones, and
3 tablets. All have the same IMAP email accounts. I can use any device
and all the same folders and emails are there.

Come to think of it, my regular program is SeaMonkey but I have TB on
two of my PCs and when I set it up all the folders and mail downloaded
to TB the first time I used each email account.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/

Just before someone gets nervous, do they experience cocoons in their
stomach?

[NFN Smith]

Bob Henson wrote:

>>> >>On that topic, another rule to avoid trouble is to never have
>>> >>subdirectories directly off the Inbox.
>> >
>> >FUD, many of our users have been doing this for years, no issues whatsoever.
>> >
> Over many years, with different e-mail clients, I have seen
> personally/heard of problems caused by both many times. We disagree.

For this, I don't think there's a universal "right answer". I think
that there's a number of variables that include server issues (including
hardware and software configuration), what email client you're using,
whether you're using POP or IMAP, and if you're using POP, your local
configuration, including hardware, operating system, and what other
tools that you're using (e.g., whether you have system indexing active,
or not).

As a general rule, I do encourage keeping pre-defined folders
(especially Inbox and Sent) to be as small as practical, and to not do
really large folders (e.g., multi-hundred MB of content), as a way of
helping with overall performance. And I get really annoyed when I see
users who use their Trash folders as their long-term filing system.

And though I've seen counsel to avoid doing sub-folders in the Inbox, I
do it on a small scale (on several POP accounts, and occasionally on an
IMAP setup), and haven't had any problems with that, I won't discount
that others have. And it could be that just because somebody has had
problems in the past, doesn't mean that those problems will repeat in
the future. With IMAP, it could be that there are changes on a server,
or with POP, using a different computer may be enough that the
conditions that caused problems in the past aren't there now.

Even though it's not a Best Practice, by historical standards, if you
have multiple GB folders (especially Inbox) or folders in the inbox, and
not having problems, then I don't see any reason to change.

The harder thing to identify is where performance gradually lags, and it
takes you a while to notice it. Then, if you have those things, moving
them, may help.

However, there's plenty of other reasons for slow performance that may
be unrelated to folder sizes -- some may be specific to a server or
service, some to your local configs. In my case, I've seen significant
performance issues on a lightly-loaded machine, where it turns out that
the problem comes from too-frequent background querying of a POP server
for new mail. When I turned down the frequency of checks, that made
most of the problems go away, on that particular machine.

Smith

[Wayne]

I need to affirm this. Dave may have found _a_ solution. But in doing so
by no means identifies the cause of the problem, nor is it an example
that extrapolates to something applicable to the general population even
if it works for some others (like if you strip everything off your car
except the drive train, it must by the laws of physics go faster) It
happily for Dave skirts the cause, but he went through a lot of pain to
get there.

Slow navigating from one message to another, without having left the
folder (not even assuming all the messages were synced locally or not),
indicates there is absolutely something else going on than just having a
large, even _enormous_ folder. Perhaps a bug, perhaps something else -
but regardless unidentified.

[Wayne]

to add to this ....

Dave, if you get to a point again where there is the least bit slowness,
there are tools we can use to identify the source of the slowness.

[Bob Henson]

On 23/03/2015 8:07 pm, NFN Smith wrote:
> Bob Henson wrote:
>
>>>>>> On that topic, another rule to avoid trouble is to never have
>>>>>> subdirectories directly off the Inbox.
>>>>
>>>> FUD, many of our users have been doing this for years, no issues whatsoever.
>>>>
>> Over many years, with different e-mail clients, I have seen
>> personally/heard of problems caused by both many times. We disagree.
>
> For this, I don't think there's a universal "right answer". I think
> that there's a number of variables that include server issues (including
> hardware and software configuration), what email client you're using,
> whether you're using POP or IMAP, and if you're using POP, your local
> configuration, including hardware, operating system, and what other
> tools that you're using (e.g., whether you have system indexing active,
> or not).
>

I agree. It is surprising how different apparently "identical" systems
can be. However I have, over many years, frequently seen problems which
are cured by emptying out the Inbox and getting rid of Inbox
subdirectories. To date, I have never once heard of a system being
damaged by having nothing in the Inbox and no subdirectories thereto -
so I figure that logic dictates that it is the way to go every time.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

There are two theories about arguing with women. Neither one works!

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/24/2015 5:03 AM, Bob Henson <rh54...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To date, I have never once heard of a system being damaged by having
> nothing in the Inbox and no subdirectories thereto - so I figure that
> logic dictates that it is the way to go every time.

That is like saying that since I have never heard of anyone getting
gangrene on their left hand after cutting off their left arm, then
'logic dictates that (cutting off your arm) is the way to go (to avoid
gangrene on your hand)'...

Maybe this was a problem a long time ago because of the way they were
stored, but today, the sub-folders are separate mbox files, so they
simply cannot cause a problem for a system that supports them.

Again, I agree with the concept/principle of keeping a clean/empty Inbox
- it should be treated just like the 'Inbox' on your desk for physical
paperwork processes. You don't just let that stuff pile up - you can't.
People only do it in their email Inbox 'because they can'.

Often, especially in the case of IMAP, just totally deleting the local
cached copies of the files for the Inbox (Inbox and Inbox.msf) and
letting it completely rebuild them from scratch would also solve the
problem.

If this is on a POP account (meaning the folder is totally local), then
one way to accomplish essentially the same thing is to create a new
Temporary folder, move all of the email into it, delete and recreate the
local Inbox folder, then move the email back.

But, yes, for local POP accounts with huge mbox files (this is the
default storage Thunderbird uses), this can cause problems, especially
if it gets fragmented, and more especially if/when it approaches the 4GB
mark.

[Dave D. Richards]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:55:36 -0400, Wayne wrote:

> Dave, if you get to a point again where there is the least bit slowness,
> there are tools we can use to identify the source of the slowness.

It will happen again, I'm sure.
For example, it often hangs and says it couldn't save the message, and I
never know if it sent it or not.

It's flaky, even with a decent (10Mbps/symmetric) connection.

[Dave D. Richards]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 17:27:55 +0000, Brian wrote:

> What I finally discovered was; a plugin I was using to sync the Tbird
> address book with the Gmail address book was malfunctioning. It created
> roughly 24,000 copies of one contact and it dragged the performance of
> Tbird into the mud.

What plugin did you use?

One thing I want to do is clean up my "address book", but I don't see any
GUI on Thunderbird that will allow me to clean up the Gmail address book.

The only way I know of to clean up Gmail contacts is through the Gmail
web GUI.

Can contacts be managed in Thunderbird for Gmail?

[CA Handly]

On 3/24/2015 12:27 PM, Brian wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:19:36 -0500, "Dave D. Richards"
> <Davedricha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> SOLVED: Thunderbird 31.4.0 is inexorably slow on Gmail IMAP viewing of incoming mail.
>>
>

> Dave, I know you have solved your issue, but, I had a similar issue happen a few
> weeks ago and jumped through many of the same hoops you did, to no avail.

>
> What I finally discovered was; a plugin I was using to sync the Tbird address
> book with the Gmail address book was malfunctioning. It created roughly 24,000
> copies of one contact and it dragged the performance of Tbird into the mud.
>

> I cleaned up all the dupes and replaced the plug-in with a different utility and
> the problems vanished. Thought I would share just in case you were doing
> something similar.
>
What were the two Apps: The one causing problems and the one working?

Texas Handly

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/24/2015 6:41 PM, Dave D. Richards <Davedricha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:55:36 -0400, Wayne wrote:
>

>> Dave, if you get to a point again where there is the least bit slowness,
>> there are tools we can use to identify the source of the slowness.
>

> It will happen again, I'm sure.
> For example, it often hangs and says it couldn't save the message, and I
> never know if it sent it or not.

Once it gets to 'Saving to Sent', the message is Sent.

That doesn't make this bug any less acceptable though... it happens to
me occasionally - but only very rarely, so no way to reproduce at all,
so not possible to open a bug for it...

When I say rarely - I mean rarely - I send hundreds of emails a day, and
have dozens of IMAP accounts (all IMAP) that I use regularly, and can't
remember the last time I saw this problem.

Next thing I'd do is try with a totally clean profile - especially if
you have been using TBird for a long time.

[ishikawa]

On 2015年03月23日 22:59, Bob Henson wrote:
> On 23/03/2015 1:50 pm, Dave D. Richards wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:51:29 +0000, Bob Henson wrote:
>>
>>> On that topic, another rule to avoid trouble is to never have
>>> subdirectories directly off the Inbox.
>>
>> What exactly does that mean, in terms of Gmail & Thunderbird?
>>
>> >From Thunderbird, on Linux, I couldn't figure out how to 'Archive' my
>> Gmail inbox messages; so I resorted to logging into the web (ugh) Gmail
>> interface, and archiving there.
>>
>> While on that web interface, I can, if I want to, create 'Folders'.
>> Are those Gmail 'Folders' what you're talking about when you say never
>> have subdirectories?
>>
>> Or, are you talking about inside of Thunderbird, not to have folders?
>>
>
> As subdirectories off your Inbox, neither local nor on-line. If you are
> using IMAP, creating one will create the other.
>

Maybe this is an issue with IMAP?

I use POP3 all the time, and I have, gasp, a few dozens
[or actually much more. I am afraid of reporting the number here :-)
Seriously a few dozen sub-directories, and if I count the subdirectories
under the
direct subdirectories off Inbox, it is about 100!]
of folders
off Inbox and I don't think I have had problems just because of the
sheer number of subfolder under Inbox so far (both under Windows and Linux).

CI

[Bob Henson]

When I first read of such problems, IMAP didn't exist, so I doubt it.
I'm surprised that your system works at all, never mind well, if you
really have that many subdirectories off the Inbox - are you sure you
don't mean off the Local Folders? But then again, having seen warnings
elsewhere, I've never been tempted to have even one subdirectory off my
Inbox - I use one Global Inbox for all e-mail accounts and all the
subfolders are off Local Folders - so I have no personal experience of
it. Similarly with Outlook, Aquamail and GmailI etc, I only have one
Inbox, regularly emptied.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/27/2015 2:10 AM, ishikawa <ishi...@yk.rim.or.jp> wrote:
> I use POP3 all the time, and I have, gasp, a few dozens [or actually
> much more. I am afraid of reporting the number here :-) Seriously a
> few dozen sub-directories, and if I count the subdirectories under
> the direct subdirectories off Inbox, it is about 100!] of folders off
> Inbox and I don't think I have had problems just because of the sheer
> number of subfolder under Inbox so far (both under Windows and
> Linux).

Anyone telling you that having sub folders of the Inbox will cause
problems doesn't know what they are talking about, so you can safely
ignore those admonitions...

As for keeping an Inbox empty of messages... that is a desirable goal,
and yes, keeping it small will definitely makes things snappier - but
having lots of messages will not in and of itself cause you any serious
problems. We have lots of people here approaching 100,000 messages, many
with very large attachments, and the only problems are it takes a long
time to download all of the headers if you ever have to repair it or for
a new/fresh profile - and compacting takes a while too...

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/27/2015 4:50 AM, Bob Henson <rh54...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I first read of such problems, IMAP didn't exist, so I doubt it.
> I'm surprised that your system works at all, never mind well, if you
> really have that many subdirectories off the Inbox - are you sure you
> don't mean off the Local Folders? But then again, having seen warnings
> elsewhere, I've never been tempted to have even one subdirectory off my
> Inbox

This advice can be safely ignored.

Bob - in the modern world, having sub-folders of the Inbox will cause
ZERO - repeat, ZERO problems.

Maybe it caused some problems way back 'when you first read of such
problems - before IMAP even existed' - and maybe I even vaguely recall
some weirdness under certain conditions - but the fact is, today, it
will cause you ZERO problems, so, please stop spreading FUD.

[Bob Henson]

On 27/03/2015 11:48 am, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 3/27/2015 4:50 AM, Bob Henson <rh54...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When I first read of such problems, IMAP didn't exist, so I doubt it.
>> I'm surprised that your system works at all, never mind well, if you
>> really have that many subdirectories off the Inbox - are you sure you
>> don't mean off the Local Folders? But then again, having seen warnings
>> elsewhere, I've never been tempted to have even one subdirectory off my
>> Inbox
>
> This advice can be safely ignored.
>
> Bob - in the modern world, having sub-folders of the Inbox will cause
> ZERO - repeat, ZERO problems.
>

Just not true.

> Maybe it caused some problems way back 'when you first read of such
> problems - before IMAP even existed' - and maybe I even vaguely recall
> some weirdness under certain conditions - but the fact is, today, it
> will cause you ZERO problems, so, please stop spreading FUD.
>

I have had a couple of e-mails from people who agree with my view, and
who presumably don't want to post in here because of knee-jerk,
aggressive replies such as yours. There are many more who agree. I won't
change my view, nor my advice to others. You will presumably do the same.

They must believe whoever they think is making the safest suggestion -
mine, that cannot possibly do any harm to follow, or yours that has
every chance of causing problems.

That's my last word on the topic.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
- Winston Churchill

[Wilf]

On 27/03/2015 11:36 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
> As for keeping an Inbox empty of messages... that is a desirable goal,
> and yes, keeping it small will definitely makes things snappier - but
> having lots of messages will not in and of itself cause you any serious
> problems. We have lots of people here approaching 100,000 messages, many
> with very large attachments, and the only problems are it takes a long
> time to download all of the headers if you ever have to repair it or for
> a new/fresh profile - and compacting takes a while too...
>

Not entirely true. Take my Gmail Sent (14k msgs) and All Mail (70k
msgs) folders as an example. Whenever I click on either of these,
Thunderbird takes minutes before it is ready. I have all the headers
already here on my PC, but nevertheless, whatever it is that TB is
doing, it takes ages to be ready. This doesn't happen with smaller
folders. No idea why.

--
Wilf

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/27/2015 10:09 AM, Brian <Br...@yourguess.invalid> wrote:
> Bob, I agree with everything you have said in this thread and I enthusiastically
> agree with what you have posted above. Hear, hear!

Said Galileo's jailer as he escorted him to the dungeon...

Rotflmao!

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/27/2015 9:43 AM, Bob Henson <rh54...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/03/2015 11:48 am, Tanstaafl wrote:

>> Bob - in the modern world, having sub-folders of the Inbox will cause
>> ZERO - repeat, ZERO problems.

> Just not true.

Prove it. In case you were unaware, burden of proof is always on the one
making the claim.

>> Maybe it caused some problems way back 'when you first read of such
>> problems - before IMAP even existed' - and maybe I even vaguely recall
>> some weirdness under certain conditions - but the fact is, today, it
>> will cause you ZERO problems, so, please stop spreading FUD.

> I have had a couple of e-mails from people who agree with my view,

And that means... nothing?

> and who presumably don't want to post in here because of knee-jerk,
> aggressive replies such as yours. There are many more who agree.

How many people believed the world was flat back in the days of Galileo,
and what impact did that have on the truth?

> I won't change my view, nor my advice to others.

Obviously... some people in the church continued to believe the world
was flat until they died, long after it was proven to be spherical.

> You will presumably do the same.
>
> They must believe whoever they think is making the safest suggestion -
> mine, that cannot possibly do any harm to follow,

True...

> or yours that has every chance of causing problems.

Again... prove it. Otherwise it is a totally baseless claim.

> That's my last word on the topic.

Hopefully...

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/27/2015 10:45 AM, Wilf <wi...@replyto.newsgroup> wrote:
> On 27/03/2015 11:36 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:

>> As for keeping an Inbox empty of messages... that is a desirable goal,
>> and yes, keeping it small will definitely makes things snappier - but
>> having lots of messages will not in and of itself cause you any serious
>> problems. We have lots of people here approaching 100,000 messages, many
>> with very large attachments, and the only problems are it takes a long
>> time to download all of the headers if you ever have to repair it or for
>> a new/fresh profile - and compacting takes a while too...

> Not entirely true. Take my Gmail Sent (14k msgs) and All Mail (70k
> msgs) folders as an example. Whenever I click on either of these,
> Thunderbird takes minutes before it is ready. I have all the headers
> already here on my PC, but nevertheless, whatever it is that TB is
> doing, it takes ages to be ready. This doesn't happen with smaller
> folders. No idea why.

Same here, so I guess I should have said that under certain conditions
the SERVER can cause problems with large folders.

Our in-house dovecot server has no problems per my OP... but yeah, gmail
does tend to have very crappy response with large virtual folders.

You can minimize this problem as far as gmail is concerned by not using
its default virtual folders (like the All Mail' one that I always
disable in the IMAP labels config), and create real folders in
Thunderbird and moving your emails to those.

[Wilf]

True, although the problem only occurs if I actually happen to want to
look in the All Mail folder. If I don't touch it, there is no problem,
so I just leave it (all Mail) in place in case I should want to use it
(to search for an old email, for example). Doing what you suggest will
mean that your local copy of All Mail will rapidly get out of date
unless you manually keep updating it.

--
Wilf

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/27/2015 11:14 AM, Wilf <wi...@replyto.newsgroup> wrote:
> True, although the problem only occurs if I actually happen to want to
> look in the All Mail folder. If I don't touch it, there is no problem,
> so I just leave it (all Mail) in place in case I should want to use it
> (to search for an old email, for example). Doing what you suggest will
> mean that your local copy of All Mail will rapidly get out of date
> unless you manually keep updating it.

? I don't *have* a 'local copy of All Mail'... ?

I have my folders... Inbox, Sent, etc...

[Wilf]

Well, I meant the "real folders" you said you create to move your
messages into.

--
Wilf

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/27/2015 11:21 AM, Wilf <wi...@replyto.newsgroup> wrote:
> On 27/03/2015 3:18 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:

> Well, I meant the "real folders" you said you create to move your
> messages into.

Ok, well, then, I don't know what you mean by 'get out of date'... it is
IMAP. It is constantly updated automatically as long as I have an
internet connection.

[Christian Riechers]

On 03/27/2015 12:36 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> As for keeping an Inbox empty of messages... that is a desirable goal,
> and yes, keeping it small will definitely makes things snappier - but
> having lots of messages will not in and of itself cause you any serious
> problems. We have lots of people here approaching 100,000 messages, many
> with very large attachments, and the only problems are it takes a long
> time to download all of the headers if you ever have to repair it or for
> a new/fresh profile - and compacting takes a while too...

The Thunderbird support forum is full with people complaining they have
lost their entire Inbox because anti-virus software decided to
quarantine it, or to otherwise mess with the Inbox or corresponding
index file and causing corruption.
Keeping the Inbox clean will dramatically reduce the risk that this happens.
Therefore, claiming a large Inbox will not cause any problems is naive.
Even though it may not cause problems for some people, it isn't
recommended in the first place.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keep_it_working_-_Thunderbird

--
Christian

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/28/2015 6:46 AM, Christian Riechers wrote:
> The Thunderbird support forum is full with people complaining they
> have lost their entire Inbox because anti-virus software decided to
> quarantine it, or to otherwise mess with the Inbox or corresponding
> index file and causing corruption.

The problem you are describing is actually just crappy, or improperly
configured (aka PEBKAC) antivirus - so don't use crappy antivirus
software, or learn how to configure it properly (ie, disable ALL active
email scanning 'features', and just let the on-demand scanner do its job).

Neither I nor any of our 60+ users have ever had this happen in the 10
years I've been managing our own internal mail server, and we've been
using Thunderbird the entire time, and lots of our users have lots of
Inbox sub-folders, and lots of messages in the Inbox, and have never had
a problem.

> Keeping the Inbox clean will dramatically reduce the risk that this
> happens.

There is no risk of this happening if your AV is properly configured.

> Therefore, claiming a large Inbox will not cause any problems is
> naive.

Non-sequitur.

I prefer eliminating causes rather than playing whack-a-mole with symptoms.

> Even though it may not cause problems for some people, it isn't
> recommended in the first place.
> http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keep_it_working_-_Thunderbird

And as I have said before, mozillazine is *not* an official Mozilla
resource, that article was penned by someone... but who?

In other words - it is an *opinion piece*, nothing more.

Again, I agree with the simple concept of keeping the Inbox clean/empty,
but for purely organizational reasons. Having Inbox sub-folders and or
lots of messages in the Inbox, in and of itself, will not cause any
problems whatsoever on a properly configured and functioning system. PERIOD.

[Chris Ilias]

Bob, if you're having problems with Thunderbird and think the cause is
inbox subfolders, then please start a new thread, and let's get to the
bottom of it.

In this case, the OP (Dave D. Richards) doesn't have any problems with
it, ishikawa doesn't have any problem with it, I don't have a problem
with it, and many others don't either. As a matter of fact, I don't
recall reading a case in which inbox subfolders were the cause of a
problem. Maybe there are, but it's not enough to advise against it.

And IMAP has been around since 1986, so I doubt you read about such an
issue when "IMAP didn't exist".

--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator

[EE]

Why would anyone need to put subfolders in the inbox? It is possible to
create additional folders in an account outside the inbox and move
messages to those folders. With the File button, it is very easy to do,
and convenient.

[Bob Henson]

You need to start reading messages before you reply to them - then
perhaps you will make more sense. I have no problem with Thunderbird
regarding Inbox overloading or subdirectories (I don't allow either) nor
did I say so anywhere - please read more carefully.

> In this case, the OP (Dave D. Richards) doesn't have any problems with
> it,

Yes he did, he solved his problems by emptying his Inbox - please read
much more carefully.

> And IMAP has been around since 1986, so I doubt you read about such an
> issue when "IMAP didn't exist".
>

I didn't say that - that was Tanstaafi - you *really* need to read much
more carefully.

You will note from the quotes above that I said "That's my last word on
the topic". Which part of that didn't you understand? I thought it was
quite a simple grammatical construction.

I am only replying to your message at all because you chose to pick up a
topic *after* it had ceased to be discussed and with your usual
overbearing desire to throw your moderators weight about and appear
important. Once again, you failed.

Follow-up (hopefully there will be none) set to mozilla.general as your
message is off-topic in here - and I am assuming that in your usual
dictatorial manner you will now block me from this group.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

Capitalism - the survival of the fattest.

[Ron K.]

Those who lost there Inbox did so because they did not configure TB let AV
scan messages before they were added to the Inbox. That option is good
protection that wards off quarantine.
--
Ron K.
Who is General Failure, and why is he searching my HDD?
Kernel Restore reported Major Error used BSOD to msg the enemy!

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/28/2015 2:34 PM, EE <nu...@bees.wax> wrote:
> Why would anyone need to put subfolders in the inbox?

Because they want to?

Seriously, why would you care where they create their folders?

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/28/2015 2:51 PM, Bob Henson <rh54...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/03/2015 4:55 pm, Chris Ilias wrote:

>> And IMAP has been around since 1986, so I doubt you read about such an
>> issue when "IMAP didn't exist".

> I didn't say that - that was Tanstaafi - you *really* need to read much
> more carefully.

Rotflmao! No, Bob, I didn't say that.

I was quoting ... wait for it ...

*YOU*

responding to something Ishikawa wrote.

So not only do you *really* need to learn to read more carefully, you
also really need to try to remember what you are saying from one post to
another.

> You will note from the quotes above that I said "That's my last word on
> the topic". Which part of that didn't you understand? I thought it was
> quite a simple grammatical construction.
>
> I am only replying to your message at all because you chose to pick up a
> topic *after* it had ceased to be discussed

Just because *you* decide a topic is over doesn't mean it is over, Bob.

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/28/2015 6:54 PM, Ron K. <kil...@gisco.net> wrote:
> Those who lost there Inbox did so because they did not configure TB let AV
> scan messages before they were added to the Inbox. That option is good
> protection that wards off quarantine.

no, it isn't, it doesn't provide any more protection that the on-demand
scanner, but it is has considerable potential for causing all kinds of
problems.

Disable ALL direct integration of your AV, and just let the on-demand
scanner do its job.

[Tanstaafl]

On 3/28/2015 2:51 PM, Bob Henson <rh54...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/03/2015 4:55 pm, Chris Ilias wrote:

>> And IMAP has been around since 1986, so I doubt you read about such an
>> issue when "IMAP didn't exist".

[Tanstaafl]

Apologies for the double post...

[g]

On 03/28/2015 05:54 PM, Ron K. wrote:
> Christian Riechers wrote on 3/28/2015 5:46 AM:
<<<>>>

>> The Thunderbird support forum is full with people complaining they
>> have lost their entire Inbox because anti-virus software decided
>> to quarantine it, or to otherwise mess with the Inbox or
>> corresponding index file and causing corruption. Keeping the Inbox
>> clean will dramatically reduce the risk that this happens.
>> Therefore, claiming a large Inbox will not cause any problems is
>> naive. Even though it may not cause problems for some people, it
>> isn't recommended in the first place.
>> http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keep_it_working_-_Thunderbird
>

> Those who lost there Inbox did so because they did not configure TB
> let AV scan messages before they were added to the Inbox. That option
> is good protection that wards off quarantine.

such is _another_ possible cause for Inbox file corruption with oos.

does not apply to linux to corruption in linux os.


--

peace out.

in a world with out fences, who needs gates.

CentOS GNU/Linux 6.6

tc,hago.

g
.