On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > Jesse Norell wrote: > > > > > > >>I think Ilja kicked the cached headers to 2.1 development... > >> > >> > > > > Really? That'd be great! Ilja: while you're in that part of the code, > >think you could stick a header flag in the messageblks table, to mark > >which blocks are the headers? Should be trivial, and would make full-header > >searches much easier for clients like weDBmail. That's been discussed > >in the past vs. moving headers to their own table... if the latter idea > >seems preferable, then don't worry about it, but it seems you get almost > >all the advantages with just adding a flag to messageblks. > > > > > > I think it would be cleaner to put the message headers into their own > table. Very searchable, and clearly distinct from the message body. >
I agree a seperate tablem but the question is: would Jesse be happy with a two table relationship. one for header titles, and the other for header contents? Security on the internet is impossible without strong, open, and unhindered encryption.
