Blake wrote:
I'm going to try something, and please don't everyone hate me for suggesting it. I'm thinking about using dbmail without the messageblk table, and storing the messages in files on the file system. It seems like a good idea to me, please tell me why it is a bad idea.
Your idea is totally off the shelve for one simple reason; it defeats the very purpose of dbmail. Now I can have a single sql backend with many pop/imap/native-sql frontends all accessing the same storage. Combine this with a replicating db setup as is currently very easy to do with mysql, and you will get a very nice highly available imap/pop solution.
If you move messageblks to the filesystem, you loose all that. What you'd be left with is a user-auth/aliases/forwarding table and some indexes for your mailboxes and messages. Storage of messages will then become critical and would require some serious redesign to match the flexibility you currently get.
Don't get me wrong though. Your idea is not without merit. It's just not dbmail. What you are talking about has already been done. It's called powermail, brought to you by the same folks who build this wonderful bind replacement called powerdns.
http://www.powerdns.com/products/powermail/index.php -- ________________________________________________________________ Paul Stevens mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] NET FACILITIES GROUP PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
