On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 08:20:03PM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote: | On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote: | | > So this new message was be appended to the same FILE? That sounds | > more like the old UNIX mailbox format. | | No. Same mailbox. | | Two servers are in sync, both with a UIDNEXT of 1000 for a particular | mailbox. They suffer a netsplit and both have an APPEND happen, | regardless of the mailstore implementation, they now both have a different | concept of what UID 1000 is. | | > | Doing replicated IMAP stores (espeically geographicly distanct ones) is | > | not an easy problem. | > | > It's easy if every message is a separate file. | | This is not true. It has nothing to do with the implementation of the | mailstore.
Apparently the way Cyrus does it, there are problems. But that does not mean it cannot be done in general. By keeping a sequential number and naming the files by that number alone, of course there can be collisions. If the original design of the mailstore required being able to do two-way replication reliably, it would be a matter of making the file names be more unique, such as using a timestamp plus hostname. So basically it comes down to, this isn't possible with Cyrus without major hacking. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | -----------------------------------------------------------------
