On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 11:35 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote: > Timo Sirainen wrote: > >> Also the mime structure could be torn apart to store > >> attachments individually - the motivation being single instance storage > >> of large attachments with identical content... Anyway, these seem like > >> very speculative directions... > >> > > > > Yes, this is also something in dbox's far future plans. > > > Speaking as a pathetic little admin of a small site of 20 users, my > needs for replication & scalability are quite minor. However, > single-instance storage would be a miracle of biblical proportions. Has > any progress been made on this?
Do you need per-MIME part single instance storage, or would per-email be enough? Since the per-email can already done with hard links. > Do you have a roadmap for how you plan on implementing it? I've written about it a couple of times I think, but no specific plans. Something about using hashes anyway. > I don't know if you've considered this at all - this was my first thought: > > If you're able to store a message with the attachments separately, then > you can come up with an attachment database (not meaning to imply SQL > backend). Then after breaking the message up into message + > attachments, you scan the attachment database to see if it is already > present prior to saving it. This could mean that not only could we save > on the huge space wasted by idiots merrily forwarding large attachments > to multiple people, but even received mails with embedded graphical > signatures would benefit. Yes, that's pretty much how I thought about it. It's anyway going to be dbox-only feature. Would be way too much trouble with other formats.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
