9fans - fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Francisco J Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Scaleable mail repositories.
Date: Tue,  1 Nov 2005 23:29:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8ccc8ba40511011429t47bf84a0y293ee9e578d311f8@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52cfc303b267b7d8c9019ae8fec6ff5d@vitanuova.com>

Why search just mail? If you store your mail as files and put in place
a search engine, the views and searches you want to make will work
for it all.

On 11/1/05, rog@vitanuova.com <rog@vitanuova.com> wrote:
> > on the other hand, what is the downside of keeping one message
> > per file? the upside is that no indexing is required.
>
> i'd say that an advantage of going for an indexed scheme is that one
> could potentially index attributes other than message number.
>
> i've never got around to biting the bullet on this, but i've long
> thought that it would be very nice to have a version of upas/fs which
> could offer different views onto the same mailbox.  one could
> implement a clone-file style filesystem where each line directory
> holds a some subset of the messages in the overall mailbox, determined
> by writing a control message, e.g.  a regexp restriction on a given
> header line.  suitable indexing, and a little extra acme support could
> make this a smooth experience.
>
> i keep many of my old mail messages around, and it's painful to search
> through them - i usually end up using grep -n, and plumbing the
> mailbox file into acme, which has at least the advantage that it
> doesn't use up all my memory.  however it's not a particularly
> pleasant experience, and i'd love to see something better.
>
> BTW, one advantage of a file-per-message format is that it enables
> straightforward annotation of messages without relying on
> mailbox-to-index-file consistency.  i don't know how others use mail,
> but i'd find some sort of annotation useful (e.g.  read/unread, intent
> to reply), and maybe this is a possible reason for changing the
> storage format.  i'm not sure though.  reading many files and
> directories will inevitably slow things down (a quick estimate on my
> current 23MB mbox shows that it would take just over 4 times as many
> 9P transactions to read the whole thing if each message were stored as
> the a separate file).
>

  reply	other threads:[~2005-11-01 22:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-10-29 15:34 [9fans] rfork(RFPROC) and ffork() erik quanstrom
2005-10-29 19:11 ` William Josephson
2005-10-29 19:18 ` Russ Cox
2005-10-29 23:00   ` erik quanstrom
2005-10-29 23:24     ` Francisco J Ballesteros
2005-10-29 23:38     ` Russ Cox
2005-10-30  0:19       ` erik quanstrom
2005-10-30  1:07         ` Russ Cox
2005-10-30  1:15           ` Ronald G Minnich
2005-10-30  1:22             ` geoff
2005-10-30  1:58               ` jmk
2005-10-30  1:54           ` Dave Eckhardt
2005-10-30  2:24           ` erik quanstrom
2005-10-30  2:51             ` geoff
2005-10-30  1:10         ` geoff
2005-10-30  1:18           ` Paul Lalonde
2005-10-30  6:52             ` Skip Tavakkolian
2005-10-30 10:14             ` Francisco J Ballesteros
2005-10-30 15:17             ` Russ Cox
2005-10-30 23:00               ` Dave Eckhardt
2005-10-30 23:14                 ` George Michaelson
2005-10-31  2:15                 ` erik quanstrom
2005-10-31  2:33                   ` geoff
2005-10-31  3:23                   ` Skip Tavakkolian
2005-10-31  4:20                 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
2005-10-31 21:31                   ` Dave Eckhardt
2005-10-31  4:06             ` [9fans] Scaleable mail repositories Lyndon Nerenberg
2005-10-31 10:55               ` C H Forsyth
2005-10-31 12:32                 ` erik quanstrom
2005-11-01 19:56                   ` rog
2005-11-01 22:29                     ` Francisco J Ballesteros [this message]
2005-11-08 19:56                       ` rog
2005-11-08 23:22                         ` Joel Salomon
2005-11-09  0:51                         ` Caerwyn Jones
2005-11-09  0:55                           ` Russ Cox
2005-11-09  3:32                         ` erik quanstrom
2005-10-31 15:30                 ` jmk
2005-10-30  1:10       ` [9fans] rfork(RFPROC) and ffork() William Josephson
2005-10-31 14:48 ` Russ Cox
2005-10-31 11:32 [9fans] Scaleable mail repositories Fco. J. Ballesteros
2005-10-31 16:01 ` Ronald G Minnich
2005-10-31 15:06   ` jmk
2005-10-31 15:14 Fco. J. Ballesteros
2005-10-31 16:22 ` Ronald G Minnich
2005-10-31 18:37   ` William Josephson
2005-10-31 15:19 Fco. J. Ballesteros
2005-10-31 15:33 Fco. J. Ballesteros
2005-10-31 18:38 ` William Josephson
2005-11-09  9:45 Fco. J. Ballesteros
2005-11-09 10:24 ` Charles Forsyth
2005-11-09 14:19   ` Sam
2005-11-10  1:24     ` erik quanstrom
2005-11-10  2:30       ` Russ Cox
2005-11-10  6:33         ` Scott Schwartz
2005-11-10 11:55         ` erik quanstrom

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=8ccc8ba40511011429t47bf84a0y293ee9e578d311f8@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=nemo@lsub.org \
    --cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).