Evolution throwing away emails for one of my accounts ?

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 20:19 +1030, Tim wrote:
> Tim:
> >> That's easy:  Fetch a scad of mail when you have filters set, versus
> >> fetch a scad of mail when you don't have any filters set.
> >> 
> >> Unmolested, they romp into the inbox very quickly.  When filtering
> >> puts its fingers in, it's far worse than fetching mail over dial-up.
> 
> James Wilkinson:
> > That sort of filtering speed (I’m guessing maybe a couple of seconds
> > per message on emails generally smaller than, say, 128 KB) makes me
> > suspect that it’s passing emails through SpamAssassin – it sounds like
> > the right speed for SpamAssassin, and there’s an
> > evolution-spamassassin package to enable it.
> 
> Nup, not doing that here.  I even disable the Evolution plugins that I'm
> not using.  
> 
> The filtering was just a few filters for mailing lists which look for a
> matching "reply-to" header.  Each filter was just the match rule,
> followed by a stop processing instruction.  With about two filters (e.g.
> for two mailing lists), it's reasonable.  With about three, it's getting
> annoying.  Try and filter from about eight different lists, and it's far
> too slow to put up with.

I'm currently filtering 10 mailing lists (most with the "Mailing-List"
search criterion, some just on Sender) plus a bunch of other junk
addresses that don't fire often. I see no slowdown at all.

> I've seen a few other similar comments about the slowness of filtering
> over the years.

I did a quick search on the Evo mailing list and there is some traffic
about two years ago in two threads. In the first one, where someone
complained about slow filtering, it turned out he was using remote tests
in his junk filters, but you aren't doing that. In the second one, the
problem is directly related to the Exchange Connector, but you aren't
doing that either, so the answer remains a mystery.

poc