> At least part of the reason I am advocating a separate headers table is > that I don't see how the header flag would work. I am guessing that you > are suggesting adding a flag to the message_blks table that says "this > row has headers in it" that is fine but under the current design, a > client such as webdbmail would still have to parse that message block to > figure out where the headers begin and where the message body begins. > Perhaps a hybrid idea would be to add the header flag and then have > dbmail only put headers into any row that has that flag set. That way > you still get the clean delineation between headers and body and not the > intrusive change to the table structure.
This last part is already done - message headers go into the first messageblks row, the message body is in all subsequent rows - so that's exactly what the flag would do. It would also allow you to have more than one messageblks row that contained headers, which if I understand correctly, cannot be done right now (so if you had a huge amount of headers (and the rfc's place no limit on that), it would currently break, but with adding a flag for them, it could be made to work). -- Jesse Norell [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not my email address; change "administrator" to my first name. --
