Im exploring mailing list systems to use with dbmail.
Can anybody guide me to a good choice
Thanks
Jacques
___
Dbmail mailing list
Dbmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Im exploring mailing list systems to use with dbmail.
Can anybody guide me to a good choice
Thanks
Jacques
Im trying to install mailman on a working setup of dbmail and postfix.
Is there a special setup of mailman for dbmail.
Thanks
Jacques
___
Dbmail mailing list
Dbmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Im trying to install mailman on a working setup of dbmail and postfix.
Is there a special setup of mailman for dbmail.
Thanks
Jacques
In some email I received from "Jesse Norell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 2 Jul
2003 09:44:34
-0600 (MDT), wrote:
>
> From: Matthew T. O'Connor
>
> > Absolutely true. I would never want the flags kept with the message,
> > however I don't understand the purpose of splitting up messages in the
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 09:44:34AM -0600, Jesse Norell wrote:
> With upcoming schema changes (cached headers, etc.), it'd
> probably be worth stepping back and looking at the best way to
> handle message storage, and see what improvements can be made.
> Even something as simple as a messageblk fl
From: Matthew T. O'Connor
> Absolutely true. I would never want the flags kept with the message,
> however I don't understand the purpose of splitting up messages in the
> message_block table. What is the reasoning behind this? It seems like
> just more work for no gain (that I am aware of).
In some email I received from "Matthew T. O'Connor" on 02
Jul 2003
10:38:11 -0400, wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 07:33, lou wrote:
> > Magnus,
> > all this sounds great, that means the codebase will create a barrier
> > between
> > both APIs also a gap which will limit the whole idea for one
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 10:50, Jesse Norell wrote:
> I think that last idea, the whole message in one record, is
> probably not a good idea on postgres because of the way it handles
> updates and free space. Every time you update a message (set seen
> flag, change status, etc... happens numerous t
From: Gianni Mariani
> c) I go both ways on the contents of the message being in the database.
> No question that it is faster to send a file to a socket (using
> sendfile) than it is to read the data from the database. So, handling
> the message contents differently (placing it in a file)
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 07:33, lou wrote:
> Magnus,
> all this sounds great, that means the codebase will create a barrier between
> both APIs also a gap which will limit the whole idea for one generic API,
> which would save time and resources writing more code and more code and more
> code..
Do
Well,
This answers the questionthat was in the back of my head, but I
didn't write it down, The pain is probably not worth the gain!
/Magnus
lou wrote:
In some email I received from Magnus Sundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 02 Jul
2003 10:49:13 +0200, wrote:
I beleive Gianni has a poin
In some email I received from Magnus Sundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 02 Jul
2003 10:49:13 +0200, wrote:
>
>
> I beleive Gianni has a point, even though I run mysql.
> Let's take the IMAP server as an example.
> 1. Parse IMAP message
> 2. Call C-function that defines the IMAP command.
> 3. T
In some email I received from Gianni Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 02 Jul
2003
01:18:47 -0700, wrote:
> lou wrote:
> There is actually no semantics in pgsql so there is no
> contention between queries. This is probably not a big deal for dbmail
> but it can be for other applications.
Gianni Mariani wrote:
lou wrote:
b) dbmail could also use stored procedures in Postgresql. This
would eliminate a bunch of processing on the server.
[...]
why? it will break portability with other servers like mysql. Also
that means all the
load to be pushed to the database serve
lou wrote:
In some email I received from Gianni Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 02 Jul
2003
00:00:16 -0700, wrote:
..
and how exactly using transaction will make it
faster, please elaborate?
Try a test. Doing a bunch of updates in a single transaction is faster
than doing m
In some email I received from Gianni Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 02 Jul
2003
00:00:16 -0700, wrote:
> lou wrote:
>
> >In some email I received from Gianni Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 01
> >Jul 2003
> >22:25:11 -0700, wrote :
> >
> ...
>
> >not true in PgSQL 7.3.3 works fine wit
lou wrote:
(MySQL have stored procedures in 4.0.x or?)
IIRC stored procedures are planned for the 5.x tree.
--
Paul Stevens mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NET FACILITIES GROUP
lou wrote:
In some email I received from Gianni Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 01 Jul
2003
22:25:11 -0700, wrote :
...
not true in PgSQL 7.3.3 works fine with > 64 conn,
alter the value in PGDATA/postgresql.conf + alter the buffer size 2xMAX_CONN
I dont see a point hardcoding something
In some email I received from Gianni Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 01 Jul
2003
22:25:11 -0700, wrote:
> Christian G. Warden wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:12:27AM -0500, Jeff Brenton wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hello Nunno,
> >>
> >>NL> 1) IMAP : don't fork. With 6 process of dbmail i can
Christian G. Warden wrote:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:12:27AM -0500, Jeff Brenton wrote:
Hello Nunno,
NL> 1) IMAP : don't fork. With 6 process of dbmail i can serve 6 imap server.
NL> the 7'th user can't use imap server
If you've configured for 6 processes, that's how many you'll get,
21 matches
Mail list logo
