On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:55:33AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:50:01PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > In summary: If you have big mailboxes, like mailinglists,
> > you will go better with Maildir or IMAP
>
> Mail store format and the remote
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 11:30:08AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> Only if you never, ever intend to touch the database with any normal file
> tools. And if that is the case one is better off with a real database instead
> of a trumped up one based off the concept of "the filesystem is a databas
Am 2005-06-06 13:47:25, schrieb Ron Johnson:
> On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 11:30 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Only if you never, ever intend to touch the database with any normal
> > file
> > tools. And if that is the case one is better off with a real database
> > instead
> > of a trumped up one
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 11:30 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > OK, I have curently around 220.000 MAILDIR-Messages of the LKM in
> > my Folder on a FileServer which is a Sempron 2200 with 256 MByte.
> > Open the Folder with mutt takes around 57 seconds via NFS/100MBit
>
> Y
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> OK, I have curently around 220.000 MAILDIR-Messages of the LKM in
> my Folder on a FileServer which is a Sempron 2200 with 256 MByte.
> Open the Folder with mutt takes around 57 seconds via NFS/100MBit
Ye, and if we were paying attention we'd see that I was talkin
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:50:01PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
> In summary: If you have big mailboxes, like mailinglists,
> you will go better with Maildir or IMAP
>
Mail store format and the remote access method are orthogonal, except in
the case of Cyrus. UW lets you
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:55:55AM -0500, Steve Block wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:20:40AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >Short summary of popular IMAP servers:
> >server why you would use it
> >--
> >UW IMAP You are a masochist
> >Cyru
Am 2005-06-05 16:06:42, schrieb Steve Lamb:
> It is not a silly response, it is factual. 500Mb of mail at an average of
> 5Kb per message is 100,000 messages. 100,000 files in a single directory is
OK, I have curently around 220.000 MAILDIR-Messages of the LKM in
my Folder on a FileServer w
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 03:34:02AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> With that said let's apply it to the conversation at hand. Are you
> implying that for the sake of sanity the individual they should place
> limitations on the email they manage on their own system. While my 100k
> example was an e
Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> Okay, at the risk of starting a flame war, it's still silly. Allowing
> users to have 100,000 messages in a single directory is insane, and is
> purely the fault of the administrator for not forcing users to download,
> sort, archive, or otherwise deal with their mail in a s
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:20:40AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Short summary of popular IMAP servers:
server why you would use it
--
UW IMAP You are a masochist
Cyrus IMAP You need *serious* scalability (e.g., 100,000 users with
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 04:06:42PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> It is not a silly response, it is factual. 500Mb of mail at an
> average of 5Kb per message is 100,000 messages. 100,000 files in
> a single directory is not "more efficient for individual deletes"
Okay, at the risk of st
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:23:43AM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
> On Jun 05 2005, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > I'd say go with UW's IMAP server.
>
> I'd say go with UW's IMAP server *only* if your computer isn't facing the
> Internet -- it has a bad security track history and many people don't trust
> it.
On Jun 05 2005, Steve Lamb wrote:
> I'd say go with UW's IMAP server.
I'd say go with UW's IMAP server *only* if your computer isn't facing the
Internet -- it has a bad security track history and many people don't trust
it.
> as far as I can tell there is none. Either it works or it doesn't. :D
On 2005-06-06, Rogério Brito penned:
> On Jun 05 2005, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>> For the last few years, I've been running mutt directly on my mail
>> server to access mbox-formatted mail.
>
> I have switched to mutt (from pine) since the pre-1.x days (it's ben
> more than 7 years, as far as I ca
On Jun 05 2005, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> For the last few years, I've been running mutt directly on my mail
> server to access mbox-formatted mail.
I have switched to mutt (from pine) since the pre-1.x days (it's ben more
than 7 years, as far as I can remember) just for reading my mail in Maildi
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> Squirrelmail seems to be extremely popular as a webmail client, so I
> went with that. I chose Dovecot because it seemed pretty light-weight
> and simple.
I'd say go with UW's IMAP server. It's not feature rich or perfect but
for home use it does the job. Configur
On 2005-06-05, Lee Braiden penned:
> On Sunday 05 Jun 2005 05:51, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>> So I finally bit the bullet and installed IMAP so that I could use
>> one of the non-openwebmail webmails. Squirrelmail's docs make a
>> big point of how if you're running mbox and don't make sure the
>>
On Sunday 05 Jun 2005 05:51, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> So I finally bit the bullet and installed IMAP so that I could use one
> of the non-openwebmail webmails. Squirrelmail's docs make a big point
> of how if you're running mbox and don't make sure the locking
> mechanisms are well-coordinated,
Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> This is a silly response. Maildir and mbox have different efficiencies;
> it depends on what you're optimizing for. Maildir requires no locking,
> and is more efficient for indivdual deletes;
It is not a silly response, it is factual. 500Mb of mail at an average of
5Kb
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:19:15AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Strictly speaking mbox is no different. It is just a text file,
> [...]
> wrong side of maildir give me mbox any day of the week. At least
> with mbox 500Mb of mail won't choke the machine into near
> uselessness.
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:19:15AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
} Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
} > While I understand that maildir allows you to isolate corruption to
} > single messages instead of the entire mailbox, I guess corruption just
} > seems so unlikely that I haven't worried about it. I'm sure
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> While I understand that maildir
> allows you to isolate corruption to single messages instead of the
> entire mailbox, I guess corruption just seems so unlikely that I
> haven't worried about it. I'm sure it will bite me soon.
Strictly speaking mbox is no different.
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 10:51:16PM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
} So I finally bit the bullet and installed IMAP so that I could use one
} of the non-openwebmail webmails. Squirrelmail's docs make a big point
} of how if you're running mbox and don't make sure the locking
} mechanisms are well-
So I finally bit the bullet and installed IMAP so that I could use one
of the non-openwebmail webmails. Squirrelmail's docs make a big point
of how if you're running mbox and don't make sure the locking
mechanisms are well-coordinated, you run a risk of turning your
mailboxes into hamburger.
How
25 matches
Mail list logo
