There are few things in the world that are universally agreed upon. Mail storage is not one of those: many people say that mbox is a poor format and would rather have some other form of mail storage. The suggestions I've seen include maildir (qmail-style or other), database storage, creating a false filesystem, or use IMAP and shunt the storage problem off to somebody else. Most of these have their own problems.
So why is mbox such a bad format? Supposedly, it doesn't scale. An mbox measuring a few GB's causes problems because it's a large file. There's also the tricky problem of deleting: a one-byte change is cheap, and so is appending, but midfile deletion or insertion is expensive.
In contrast, people sing the praises of maildir: by using one file per message, deletion is cheap. But there are hidden costs. Stating a directory to find new messages or deleted messages is relatively expensive. Also, modern filesystems attach metadata to each file. A 1KB metadata is not noticeable in a 1GB file, but 1KB metadata for each of 50,000 files is 50MB, which can be noticeable.
Using databases for mail storage? Yes, people have suggested it (bug 361087), and one even has the gall to request it as blocking-thunderbird3 (Point of order: I would probably reject maildir as blocking and even pluggable storage APIs I would only go so far as to say wanted). The basic reason cited for doing so is that "databases... are very stable and robust." Note however that mboxes are older, more stable, and more robust in theory and probably in practice too. And scalability? Exact same problems with mbox, only slightly exacerbated (probably going to have more indexes).
The second-to-last option (false filesystem) has problems of its own. From the comments I read, it would appear to force mozilla to carry along another lib*** implementation that I suspect is ill-tested. I also suspect that no one has tried (at least very hard) to port it to Windows. I also suspect this holds the same scalability flaws (the argument for this is "individual mail storage is [not] the job of the MUA anymore," to be fair).
So where are we? The primary argument against mbox is that it scales poorly. Yet all of the other suggested replacements suffer the same problems, manifested in different ways. Echoing Churchill's comment on democracy, mbox is the worst mail storage format except for all the others. It actually has a lot going for it: it's simple and universal, more than the others can claim.
If you really want to fix scalability, there are two options. First, don't keep GB of mail. I may accumulate 100 MB of mail in a year (half of it spam, actually), but I clean my mail out at least yearly to prune conversations that are outdated. Option 2: keep your folders small. Mailing list archives starts a new archive each month by default, which tends to keep the mailing list from getting large.