On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:04:33 +0200, "Rudy Gevaert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > b) think they should be hashed based on the username rather than into 'u'? > > Keeping the same filesystem layout I would either prefer > > DELETED/user/rudy.gevaert/Foo/[EMAIL PROTECTED] to be located in > /somewhere/imap/domain/u/ugent.be/DELETED/r/user/rudy^gevaert/Foo/471364C1/
That's doable, though it's a special case of sorts which brings "DELETED" outside the standard hashing layout. > or have it in > /somewhere/imap/domain/u/ugent.be/r/user/rudy^gevaert/DELETED/Foo/471364C1/ Totally bogus. This is the same path as the legal user folder: INBOX.DELETED.Foo.471364C1 > > c) think something entirely different should be done with them? > > > My (c) is as I posted in my followup: > > > >> We wrote our userhash patch so the locations would be: > > I can see the advantages of this too! How do you think about this Ken? > (I'm not sure if this needs to be in 2.3.10 as it's a bit of a big > change.) Actually it's a tiny change :) It was only a handful of lines of code and it's protected by a config option anyway. The downside is a rather big and messy "rehash" that's not entirely good about cleaning up after itself - so I would recommend against inclusion in 2.3.10 at this point. I'd rather get a stable 2.3.10 out there than keep holding off for it to be perfect. Version numbers are cheap :) Bron. -- Bron Gondwana [EMAIL PROTECTED]
