From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:06:48 -0500 From: jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Scaleable mail repositories. In-Reply-To: <43663FC8.9070101@lanl.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: a332ef66-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Spot on, Ron. And remember, whatever new scheme wins, it still has to be able to read my 20+ years of mbox format messages too. --jim On Mon Oct 31 10:02:13 EST 2005, rminnich@lanl.gov wrote: > Fco. J. Ballesteros wrote: > > It's easy to write file servers, but that does not mean that it's the > > right way to proceed. IMHO, if you want to see your mail as files, and > > you have a file server, it's easier to store the mail in that format. All > > the code necessary to handle your storage and index structure becomes > > fossil/venti, and all that has to be done is to convert from the mbox format > > into your preferred archival format, and to feed upas with input messages > > for sending. Isn't this more simple and powerful? Or are you thinking of > > something else that is best done using the existing format? > > > just run mh 'scan' on 1000 files and make it as fast as the old 'msg' > utility (which I went to from mh) and I'll buy it. MH got so painfully > slow for me that I couldn't take it. > > But, hey, implement it and let's see . > > no need to argue. > > ron