On Monday 28 February 2005 14:26, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i came up with the number by totalling the mailbox sizes of a 3000 user
> mail system, and then dividing by the total number of messages in these
> mailboxes. this generated a number around 13k average message size.
> i had
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 23:46 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Sure, these are implementation issues that could be solved, but
> > currently mbox wins.
>
> Who says you have to use either one or the other for everything? I use
> maildir for incoming mail
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 09:03 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > "Michelle" == Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > inefficient at storing large number of very small files (due
> >> to block > size limitations of file system), and more
> >> complicated to > transfer/move/sh
Scripsit Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sure, these are implementation issues that could be solved, but
> currently mbox wins.
Who says you have to use either one or the other for everything? I use
maildir for incoming mail but mbox files for most of my old saved
mail. Works nice and seamlessly.
Scripsit Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Thats why I responded, there is not really a need to modify maildir
> files,
That depends. I sometimes want to archive the text people wrote to me
without wasting disk space (and performance when I search my mail
archive) on attachments that I don't
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:03:06AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Also, all mailing list software I have seen so far exclusively uses
> mbox files.
>
> Sure, these are implementation issues that could be solved, but
> currently mbox wins.
if the use of your stored mail is append-only and read-only, th
> "Michelle" == Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > inefficient at storing large number of very small files (due
>> to block > size limitations of file system), and more
>> complicated to > transfer/move/share.
Michelle> What is complicate ? You need only the ri
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 22:55 +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 28 February 2005 01:51, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote:
> [snip]
> > > figuring the average email is about 13-15k, i believe an ext2/ext3
> >
> > That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir
On Monday 28 February 2005 01:51, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote:
[snip]
> > figuring the average email is about 13-15k, i believe an ext2/ext3
>
> That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive of d-u, the
> average size is 4,959 bytes. Of course, the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> That's for a maildir. It won't help you for mbox folders. Which kind
> of was the point, as I understand it.
Well, the comment that a file is immutable applies to maildir but not mbox
(obviously - how would you add new mails?). Thats why I responded, the
Am 2005-02-28 02:43:45, schrieb Ron Johnson:
> On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 09:25 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > Who has 20 GByte mailboxes ? - It is realy braindamaged...
>
> The same person with the 2GB mbox that started this thread, after
> s/he neglected it for a few more months.
:-/
Oh yes,
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 09:25 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2005-02-27 20:19:09, schrieb Ron Johnson:
>
> > Sure, for those *20* GB mbox files.
>
> Who has 20 GByte mailboxes ? - It is realy braindamaged...
The same person with the 2GB mbox that started this thread, after
s/he neglected it
Am 2005-02-27 20:19:09, schrieb Ron Johnson:
> Sure, for those *20* GB mbox files.
Who has 20 GByte mailboxes ? - It is realy braindamaged...
Even on xfs, open a 20 GByte Mailbox will eat up all resources
on the System
Greetings
Michelle
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://
Am 2005-02-28 04:34:41, schrieb Bernd Eckenfels:
> You mark a message as new by moving it to the "new" directory, and mark it
> as seen with the "cur" directory. Flags are normally added to the file name
> (by mutt for example). However some MUA-Servers need more info, which is
> then stored in ex
Am 2005-02-27 20:42:03, schrieb Ron Johnson:
> Ah. Maildir distinguishes "new" and "already read" by whether
> an email is in the new/ or cur/ folder.
>
> Doing a "select all, and mark as read" on a multi-GB mbox file
> sounds painful.
This is, why I never will use mailbox
Fortunatly I have
Am 2005-02-27 18:19:45, schrieb sean finney:
> can't help but chime in here :)
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:22:30AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > Not every situation warrants using maildir, it uses a large number of
> > inodes, is slow to scan (yes, mbox isn't very good either),
Mailbox is MUCH slo
Scripsit Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> It means that the message is not marked 'new'. Many MUA's keep track
>> of message flags by inserting this header into the message.
> You mark a message as new by moving it to the "new" directory,
That's
Scripsit Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Doing a "select all, and mark as read" on a multi-GB mbox file
> sounds painful.
Indeed. Or just "mark the first (or any) message as read".
If one's MUA is the version of mutt shipped with woody one gets twice
the pain because it will *first* write the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> It means that the message is not marked 'new'. Many MUA's keep track
> of message flags by inserting this header into the message.
You mark a message as new by moving it to the "new" directory, and mark it
as seen with the "cur" directory. Flags are norm
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 22:26 -0500, sean finney wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive of d-u, the
> > average size is 4,959 bytes. Of course, there are no html mails.
> > Though, even in my Evolution list archive,
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive of d-u, the
> average size is 4,959 bytes. Of course, there are no html mails.
> Though, even in my Evolution list archive, where there are many
> more html-mails, the average size is
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 02:05 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 11:54 +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
>
> >> > I thought it was "illegal" to modify a message.
>
> >> "Status: O"?
>
> > I don't know what that means.
>
> It means that the
Scripsit Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 11:54 +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
>> > I thought it was "illegal" to modify a message.
>> "Status: O"?
> I don't know what that means.
It means that the message is not marked 'new'. Many MUA's keep track
of message flags by inserti
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 20:54 -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > Of course, all of these factors depend on the file system used. I am
> > > > confident somebody could point out a file-system that eliminates many
> >
> > Reiserfs, of cou
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > Of course, all of these factors depend on the file system used. I am
> > > confident somebody could point out a file-system that eliminates many
>
> Reiserfs, of course.
You meant XFS, right?
(Sorry, couldn't be helped. :)
--
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 11:54 +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote:
> > > recent versions of kernel/ext2/ext3 have built-in dirent hashing, which
> > > cuts heavily on the many-files penalty.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote:
> > recent versions of kernel/ext2/ext3 have built-in dirent hashing, which
> > cuts heavily on the many-files penalty. another benefit of maildir
> > is that when you modify a sing
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote:
> can't help but chime in here :)
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:22:30AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
[snip]
>
> figuring the average email is about 13-15k, i believe an ext2/ext3
That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive of d-u, the
avera
can't help but chime in here :)
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:22:30AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Not every situation warrants using maildir, it uses a large number of
> inodes, is slow to scan (yes, mbox isn't very good either),
> inefficient at storing large number of very small files (due to block
>
29 matches
Mail list logo
