Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: OT - mail archive

Expand Messages
  • grarpamp
    ... It is *a* solution, not *the* solution, and obviously not one of the type I describes. And a fine pff to you my friend.
    Message 1 of 17 , Apr 26, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      >>>>>> specified out there that applications could utilize...
      >>>>>> where n is your split width... tmp/n, new/n, cur/n.

      > pff and you realized that the "not a file per message" is
      > exactly the solution for problems with tens thousands of

      It is *a* solution, not *the* solution, and obviously not one
      of the type I describes. And a fine pff to you my friend.
    • Robert Schetterer
      ... if done a mailbox archive test with postfix bcc, filtering with sieve to domain, user, date, mail-in , mail-out sort in subfolders i dont see urgent need
      Message 2 of 17 , Apr 26, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Am 26.04.2013 21:24, schrieb grarpamp:
        >>>>> specified out there that applications could utilize...
        >>>>> where n is your split width... tmp/n, new/n, cur/n.
        >
        >> alternate you may use mdbox
        >> http://wiki2.dovecot.org/MailboxFormat/dbox
        >
        > Both of these hold all messages in a single directory.
        > So sdbox would be no advantage there.
        > And mdbox does not support one message per file, nor
        > without metadata added to it, so those needing that for
        > other purposes would have no advantage.

        if done a mailbox archive test with postfix bcc, filtering
        with sieve to domain, user, date, mail-in , mail-out sort in subfolders

        i dont see urgent need for having each mail a file, as you may connect
        to the archive via imap client for restore one mail,
        mdbox to my knowledge is the best open compromise on filesystem mailbox
        formats for filesystems, but however maildir should work too if used in
        a well desigend setup, you might need scripting taring partitioning too,
        on the long run.
        Other Soltuions do store archive in Databases etc

        > [There is a per file limit specified in bytes, not count. It's
        > not clear what the behavior would be if a proposed new msg in
        > a new file would exceed a lesser byte limit. Perhaps a safe
        > bounce or queue.]
        >
        > I do like that they are reasonably well specified, publicly
        > on a wiki as opposed to only in source, and have a comparison
        > table of support on the parent page. All of which lead to easier
        > review and adoption by interested parties.
        >

        in germany companies 10 year archive for finance mails is a must have by
        law, so there are serveral certified professional solutions, you may
        have a look on.

        Dovecot also offers some archive solution, and a object store
        you might have a look on

        At the end this isnt a real postfix theme, its more about storage etc


        Best Regards
        MfG Robert Schetterer

        --
        [*] sys4 AG

        http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
        Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München

        Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263
        Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Axel von der Ohe, Marc Schiffbauer
        Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein
      • Stan Hoeppner
        ... True. mbox solved this problem before it really began, back before people started mass archiving thousands or tens of thousands of emails. When used with
        Message 3 of 17 , Apr 26, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On 4/26/2013 9:32 PM, grarpamp wrote:
          >>>>>>> specified out there that applications could utilize...
          >>>>>>> where n is your split width... tmp/n, new/n, cur/n.
          >
          >> pff and you realized that the "not a file per message" is
          >> exactly the solution for problems with tens thousands of
          >
          > It is *a* solution, not *the* solution,

          True. mbox solved this problem before it really began, back before
          people started mass archiving thousands or tens of thousands of emails.
          When used with modern MUAs and multiple name spaces you can mitigate or
          eliminate the locking problems, especially if using sieve to sort to
          these folders/files during delivery.

          I've been using such a setup with Dovecot, Thunderbird, and Roundcube,
          for may years. The largest of my mbox files, XFS list mail, is only
          19K+ emails. Full text searching it is relatively quick even if the FTS
          index isn't primed, and especially given the age of the hardware. If I
          was using maildir storage I can only assume FTS would take quite a while
          longer, as well as backup.

          --
          Stan
        • grarpamp
          ... I must admit giving yourself the local equivalent of your own lifetime email account is an interesting approach if you don t really need access to the raw
          Message 4 of 17 , Apr 26, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            > re: the last two posts

            I must admit giving yourself the local equivalent
            of your own lifetime email account is an interesting
            approach if you don't really need access to the raw
            message files on disk.
          • Reindl Harald
            ... boy you replied to Faster disks don t solve algorithmic problems (problems related to the number of files per directory) with And mdbox does not support
            Message 5 of 17 , Apr 27, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Am 27.04.2013 04:32, schrieb grarpamp:
              >>>>>>> specified out there that applications could utilize...
              >>>>>>> where n is your split width... tmp/n, new/n, cur/n.
              >
              >> pff and you realized that the "not a file per message" is
              >> exactly the solution for problems with tens thousands of
              >
              > It is *a* solution, not *the* solution, and obviously not one
              > of the type I describes. And a fine pff to you my friend.

              boy you replied to "Faster disks don't solve algorithmic problems
              (problems related to the number of files per directory)" with
              "And mdbox does not support one message per file"

              no it is not *the* solution, but "does not support one message
              püer file is pure bullshit in this context because it is what
              you want
            • grarpamp
              ... No, actually right up there is what I was surveying. But you failed to grok that in your search for more pfft. I m sure it s a nice day, go outside :)
              Message 6 of 17 , Apr 27, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                >> specified out there that applications could utilize...
                >> where n is your split width... tmp/n, new/n, cur/n.

                > it is what you want

                No, actually right up there is what I was surveying.
                But you failed to grok that in your search for more pfft.
                I'm sure it's a nice day, go outside :)
              • Reindl Harald
                ... maybe you should learn how to use a mail-client and quote before you post to a mail-server list - your answer above makes no sense at all in context of the
                Message 7 of 17 , Apr 27, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Am 27.04.2013 23:03, schrieb grarpamp:
                  >>> specified out there that applications could utilize...
                  >>> where n is your split width... tmp/n, new/n, cur/n.
                  >
                  >> it is what you want
                  >
                  > No, actually right up there is what I was surveying.
                  > But you failed to grok that in your search for more pfft.
                  > I'm sure it's a nice day, go outside :)

                  maybe you should learn how to use a mail-client and quote
                  before you post to a mail-server list - your answer above
                  makes no sense at all in context of the thread
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.