372119 - Summary: Memory Usage with the Email Client

Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME

(SeaMonkey :: MailNews: Account Configuration, defect)

Description

[Joseph C. Avakoff]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070222 SeaMonkey/1.1.1
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070222 SeaMonkey/1.1.1


Summary: Memory Usage with the Email Client

Comments: Emptying file folders only changes the msf file ... doesn't delete the
items.

I found this problem on Netscape. Now, it is on SeaMonkey.

On Oct. 29, 2006, I ended up with the following in
Mozilla/Profiles/default/itbw8r3bslt/mail/postoffice.pacbell.net
(my mail folder) as follows ... Inbox 0 KB, Trash 33556 KB.

Today (Nov. 14, 2006) after numerous deletions, I have
Inbox 122,102 KB,  Trash 171,122 KB.

Yet, according to SeaMonkey Email client, I have, in my Inbox, 3 files
for 10 KB, and 2608 files in my Trash folder that was similar in number
to that of Oct. 29.

I did find a way to get around this ... delete the files I want to
delete, move the files I want to save into another folder such as the
Draft folder, close up everything, go to Windows Explorer and just
delete the Draft folder and msf file, then go back to the Email client
and move the saved files back to where they belong ... etc. (On starting
up SeaMonkey, the particular folder and msf file reappears, empty.)

However, it would be nice that when you delete a file from Trash, or
from the Inbox, etc., the file would be deleted rather than the msf file
simply being changed.

Perhaps you could check into a fix for this problem.

When I first discovered this problem with Netscape, I had over a
Gigabyte in the Trash file.

Thank you.
P.S. Right now I have 750 MB in my trash folder and 335 MB in my Inbox.
About time to go through the above procedures to really empty them. 

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Delete trash file
2. Open Explorer
3. Check contents of trash file.
4. Etc. for the other file folders



Should have actually deleted the files rather than just modify the msf file.

Comment 1

[David :Bienvenu]

Have you tried either of these commands? It's hard to tell from your bug report.

file | empty trash
file | compact folders

Comment 2

[Joseph C. Avakoff]

I only delete the older files from the trash, leaving 2000 - 3000 files present just in case I need to go back and check on them for some reason.

However, using Windows Explorer, it seems that the "trash" folder just gets larger and larger, once reaching over 1 GB even though, via the SeaMonkey/Netscape size indicator for each Email, there are only a few MB present.

Hence, it appears that the msf file is being changed, but the Email files are not being deleted.

The same for the "sent" folder and the "Inbox" folder, etc.

I hope this helps.

Thank you.

Comment 3

[David :Bienvenu]

Did you try compacting the trash folder, or all folders?

e.g., select trash, right click, pick compact this folder?

Comment 4

[Joseph C. Avakoff]

(In reply to comment #3)
> Did you try compacting the trash folder, or all folders?
> 
> e.g., select trash, right click, pick compact this folder?
> 

=====================================

No. I wanted to remove the old files, not compact them.

Comment 5

[Mike Cowperthwaite]

You seem to be confused about terminology.

Each message folder is stored as a file, containing multiple messages.

So what is it, exactly, that you want to remove -- old messages, or old "files"?  If the latter, exactly what are you talking about?  It's easy to remove old folders, you just delete them; and then empty the trash to clear them out.

If the former, compaction is in fact what you want to use.  Compaction rewrites the file so that it contains only the messages which have not been deleted.


> I only delete the older files from the trash, leaving 2000 - 3000 files
> present just in case I need to go back and check on them for some reason.

Instead of putting the messages you might want to revisit in Trash -- which is designed for messages that you no longer want -- why don't you store them in an archive folder?

Comment 6

[Joseph C. Avakoff]

(In reply to comment #5)
> You seem to be confused about terminology.
> 
> Each message folder is stored as a file, containing multiple messages.
> 
> So what is it, exactly, that you want to remove -- old messages, or old
> "files"?  If the latter, exactly what are you talking about?  It's easy to
> remove old folders, you just delete them; and then empty the trash to clear
> them out.
> 
> If the former, compaction is in fact what you want to use.  Compaction rewrites
> the file so that it contains only the messages which have not been deleted.
> 
> 
> > I only delete the older files from the trash, leaving 2000 - 3000 files
> > present just in case I need to go back and check on them for some reason.
> 
> Instead of putting the messages you might want to revisit in Trash -- which is
> designed for messages that you no longer want -- why don't you store them in an
> archive folder?
> 

================================

My problem is simple.

I can delete a file from my Inbox.

It goes into the Trash folder.

I delete it from the Trash folder.

And, after doing this many times, the Inbox folder just keeps getting larger and larger, as does the Trash folder, etc. According to Windows Explorer.

I think it would be preferable to have a deleted file deleted, gone, kaput, whatever, rather than just hanging around taking up disc space.

As I indicated, when I discovered this bug, my Trash folder had over 1 GB in it.

And, I might add that if I moved a file from Inbox to an Archives folder, it would still be in the Inbox, but the msf file would have changed to indicate it is not supposed to be there.

Comment 7

[David :Bienvenu]

Yes, and the solution is to do a file | compact folders. That reclaims the storage for deleted messages.

I assume you're still saying file when you mean message.

Comment 8

[Joseph C. Avakoff]

Well, compacting the folders seems to work.

And, yes, I was talking about messages.

Somewhere, this "problem" should be addressed.

Or, perhaps, it already has and I missed it.

Thank you for your help.

If I have any further problems in this regard, I will let you know.