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 database.
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 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 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
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
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
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
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
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
Cyrus IMAP
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
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 talking
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
Ye,
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 based off
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 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 it
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.
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 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, you
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
locking
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.
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 Maildir
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 can
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
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
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
