Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 06:16:15PM -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:MS Exchange... one big DatabaseExactly...And that is one reason why I wouldn't touch this SQL idea with a 10 foot pole.. the fact that Exchange works this way only proves my point... I hear all the time about Exchange servers crashing and the administrator having to rebuild the database while the mail server is down for the next 10 hours.Just because MS couldn't figure out how to do this correctly doesn't mean it can't be done. Thanks Jim. The idea here is to be forward looking and only do it if the databases are up to it. My thinking is that DBs will continue to improve to the point where using them makes more and more sense. Obviously if the DB isn't up to the task then there's no readon to do it. Here's something called DBMail that looks like it's on the right track. http://www.dbmail.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=bigpicture |
- Re: Re[2]: The Future of Email is SQL John Rudd
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL Marc Perkel
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL Marc Perkel
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL kbaker
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL Kenneth Porter
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL Marc Perkel
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL Steve Thomas
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL Ramprasad
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL John Rudd
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL Marc Perkel
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL Marc Perkel
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL Marc Perkel
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL Marc Perkel
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL NM Public
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL Marc Perkel
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL qqqq
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL Jim C. Nasby
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL kbaker
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL Jason Haar
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL David Landgren
- Re: The Future of Email is SQL jdow