Hello,
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 10:22:21AM -0600, Georg Lehner wrote:
> [ explanation about mail storage mechanisms clipped ]
> dpkg-reconfigure maildelivery
sounds ok, but the original list was imho missing:
"maildir++"
(for quota support).
Best,
--Toni++
Hello!
El mar, 06-08-2002 a las 07:21, Jarno Elonen escribió:
...
> > Any packages treating with system mailbox handling, should use the
> > first word in the first line of this file, to determine how to
> > configure themselves.
>
> Sounds very good, but are you sure this is feasible enough to
Hello!
It was a very interesting discussion about Mail Storage efficiency and
finally made me look into ext3 and reiser - very cool.
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 05:15:55PM -0400, Loren Jordan wrote:
...
> problems. This pine package also supports maildirs. The stock build of
> Pine does NOT, last t
> /etc/default/maildelivery
>
> [...]
>
> Any packages treating with system mailbox handling, should use the
> first word in the first line of this file, to determine how to
> configure themselves.
Sounds very good, but are you sure this is feasible enough to implement?
It would probably be quite
At 10:30 AM 7/31/2002 +0300, Jarno Elonen wrote:
> People still use pine? Where do you get deb's for that, or at least
> installer deb's. Last time I looked they apeared gone for good. I have one
> user who want's his pine fix bad, and I've been fobbing him of with "it's
> no-longer available, use
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 20:08, Kirk Ismay wrote:
> With mbox, the whole file will get backed up with every incremental backup
> if it is changed. If you have clients using IMAP or don't check their email
> often, you wind up with lots of big files. With spam and viruses arriving
> all the time, most mai
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: Maildirs in Debian
> Hello!
>
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 09:06:07AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> ...
> > There are plenty of reasons to not use Maildir, too
Hello!
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 09:06:07AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
...
> There are plenty of reasons to not use Maildir, too.
...
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 09:26:29AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
...
> No. I use maildirs on my IMAP server and mboxes on my desktop because they
> are appropriate to each.
also sprach Phillip Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.08.03.0227 +0200]:
> Yes, but having a long wait when opening your folder a couple of
> times a year because you've been away on vacation is another thing
> entirely to willingly subjecting yourself once (or several times)
> a day to having to sit
Nate wrote:
> I'm not trying to change your mind on anything, but I think there's
> something you're overlooking - vacations. I was out of town last week,
> and my "systems" folder is the list where my SysAdmin team gets email.
> It receives anywhere from 500 to over 1000 email messages a day. In o
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 11:17:42PM +0100, Phillip Baker wrote:
> Some would say, the solution would be to delete messages instead of hoarding
> all your mailing list email which is more than likely archived automatically
> by the list manager anyway (one would hope - I haven't actually checked, but
On Fri, 02 Aug 2002, Phillip Baker wrote:
> Some would say, the solution would be to delete messages instead of hoarding
> all your mailing list email which is more than likely archived automatically
> by the list manager anyway (one would hope - I haven't actually checked, but
> I'm sure theres g
nt: Friday, August 02, 2002 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: Maildirs in Debian
On Fri, 02 Aug 2002, Nate Campi wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:53:32AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> >
> > Please realize that it's not enough to stat them. Your MUA needs to open
> > all of th
On Fri, 02 Aug 2002, Nate Campi wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:53:32AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> >
> > Please realize that it's not enough to stat them. Your MUA needs to open
> > all of them to read the mail headers:
>
> True, not the best proof, but opening that mail folder on ext3
Nate Campi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> True, not the best proof, but opening that mail folder on ext3 takes
> only a second or two with mutt, and opening it on reiserfs with mutt
> takes 30 seconds or more. ext3/maildir is a fast and reliable mail
> folder combo
It appears you're not the only one
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:53:32AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
>
> Please realize that it's not enough to stat them. Your MUA needs to open
> all of them to read the mail headers:
True, not the best proof, but opening that mail folder on ext3 takes
only a second or two with mutt, and opening it
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:19, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > Jeff,
> > please share the cons/pros with us
>
> The following document provides a good analysis of why Maildir was more
> appropriate to Courier IMAP's general audience and tasks (the SELECT.1
> benchmarks are telling):
>
> http://www.cou
On Thu, 01 Aug 2002, Nate Campi wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 03:53:24PM +1200, John Morton wrote:
> >
> > Maildir performance and scalability is dependant on the filesystem. If the
> > filesystem your maildirs live on store small files efficiently, and can
> > list
> > and access files in
> Jeff,
> please share the cons/pros with us
The following document provides a good analysis of why Maildir was more
appropriate to Courier IMAP's general audience and tasks (the SELECT.1
benchmarks are telling):
http://www.courier-mta.org/mbox-vs-maildir/
To me, the differences can be
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 03:53:24PM +1200, John Morton wrote:
>
> Maildir performance and scalability is dependant on the filesystem. If the
> filesystem your maildirs live on store small files efficiently, and can list
> and access files in directories filled with thousands of other small files,
On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:33, Germán Gutierrez wrote:
> Jeff Waugh escribio:
> >
> >
> >> > There are plenty of reasons to not use Maildir, too.
> >>
> >> Aren't they mostly to do with backwards compatibility? If everything
> >> in Debian could handle it, wouldn't this be a non-issue?
> >
> > No. I
Jeff Waugh escribio:
>
>
>> > There are plenty of reasons to not use Maildir, too.
>>
>> Aren't they mostly to do with backwards compatibility? If everything
>> in Debian could handle it, wouldn't this be a non-issue?
>
> No. I use maildirs on my IMAP server and mboxes on my desktop because
> th
> > There are plenty of reasons to not use Maildir, too.
>
> Aren't they mostly to do with backwards compatibility? If everything in
> Debian could handle it, wouldn't this be a non-issue?
No. I use maildirs on my IMAP server and mboxes on my desktop because they
are appropriate to each. They o
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 09:06:07AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > Failing that, a migration to pure maildir would probably be good, provided
> > the migration could be handled transperantly.
>
> There are plenty of reasons to not use Maildir, too.
Aren't they mostly to do with backwards compa
> Failing that, a migration to pure maildir would probably be good, provided
> the migration could be handled transperantly.
There are plenty of reasons to not use Maildir, too.
- Jeff
--
"What's up with that word though... it's like something you did to
frogs in grammar s
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01.08.02 06:53]:
> Some steps I remember:
>
> - Change /etc/login.defs to use:
> QMAIL_DIR Maildir/
> #MAIL_DIR/var/spool/mail
> MAIL_FILE Maildir/
/etc/pam.d/login
sessionoptional pam_mail.so dir=~/Maildir/
Perhaps add a lin
Hello!
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 12:08:14PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
...
> > My understanding was that the Maildir patches for the c-client libraries
> > (affecting the UW imapd and Pine) were not very stable. Furthermore, as
People using non-Maildir functional Software wouldn't need to migrat
also sprach C. R. Oldham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.07.30.1917 +0200]:
> My understanding was that the Maildir patches for the c-client libraries
> (affecting the UW imapd and Pine) were not very stable. Furthermore, as
> a longtime subscriber to the c-client discussion list, Mark Crispin
> hates M
> People still use pine? Where do you get deb's for that, or at least
> installer deb's. Last time I looked they apeared gone for good. I have one
> user who want's his pine fix bad, and I've been fobbing him of with "it's
> no-longer available, use mutt".
The Pine license prohibits distribution i
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 10:17:13AM -0700, C. R. Oldham wrote:
> > Maildir delivery has lots of advantages over mbox spools, but
> > the latter is the only standard.
> >
> > Almost all M*A's support both standards.
>
> My understanding was that the Maildir patches for the c-client libraries
> (af
>Mark Crispin
> hates Maildir. Mark's feelings may not have a bearing on the final
> decisions, I just include that as a datapoint.
LOL .
I hate round robin and divide and conquer strategies, i loathe
chalenge-response authentication, the very thought of heap-sort
techniques make me shive
> Maildir delivery has lots of advantages over mbox spools, but
> the latter is the only standard.
>
> Almost all M*A's support both standards.
My understanding was that the Maildir patches for the c-client libraries
(affecting the UW imapd and Pine) were not very stable. Furthermore, as
a long
Hello!
I just want to sense the environment about a to be proposed Debian
policy change with respect to mail handling.
Maildir delivery has lots of advantages over mbox spools, but the
latter is the only standard.
Almost all M*A's support both standards.
It would be a big relieve, if one could
33 matches
Mail list logo
