> 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.
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*
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.
>> 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
Quoting 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.
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
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 d
It's true I don't have your experience as you are the postfix coders.
But it's also true you don't know what can be my expericence.
Considering your political answers since the beginning, embarassing for who?
You're right that's enough. I'm going to answer you in private.
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le
Bill Cole:
> On 26 Apr 2013, at 5:24, Patrick Proniewski wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Few months ago, I've switched my postfix setup from "regular"
> > greylisting to "milter" greylisting, and it appears to have changed
> > few things about header_checks I didn't notice until yesterday.
> [...]
>
On 26 Apr 2013, at 5:24, Patrick Proniewski wrote:
Hello,
Few months ago, I've switched my postfix setup from "regular"
greylisting to "milter" greylisting, and it appears to have changed
few things about header_checks I didn't notice until yesterday.
[...]
Yesterday, I've used header_chec
Am 26.04.2013 13:20, schrieb Wietse Venema:
> post...@netorbit.it:
>> On 26/04/2013 00:15, grarpamp wrote:
maildir format scale[s] quite well; pretty much the only
limitation is storage I/O.
>>> Depending on your FS and horsepower, anything over
>>> 1000 x (n * 10) files in a directory ca
post...@netorbit.it:
> On 26/04/2013 00:15, grarpamp wrote:
> >> maildir format scale[s] quite well; pretty much the only
> >> limitation is storage I/O.
> > Depending on your FS and horsepower, anything over
> > 1000 x (n * 10) files in a directory can start to sink you
> > pretty quick. I've alwa
>> I've always wondered if there's a maildir split
>> specified out there that applications could utilize...
>> where n is your split width... tmp/n, new/n, cur/n.
>
> what about shifting this problem to the storage layer?
> Apart using SSDs, what about using having a striped array as a RAID 1+0
>
On 26/04/2013 00:15, grarpamp wrote:
maildir format scale[s] quite well; pretty much the only
limitation is storage I/O.
Depending on your FS and horsepower, anything over
1000 x (n * 10) files in a directory can start to sink you
pretty quick. I've always wondered if there's a maildir split
spe
Hello,
Few months ago, I've switched my postfix setup from "regular" greylisting to
"milter" greylisting, and it appears to have changed few things about
header_checks I didn't notice until yesterday.
My setup uses before-queue content filtering:
# Before-filter SMTP server. Receive mail from t
15 matches
Mail list logo
