On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 03:31:47PM -0500, Amos Gouaux wrote:
| >>>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 09:41:12 -0500,
| >>>>> Phil Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (ph) writes:
|
| ph> Not all users want, or do anything with, a separate spam folder.
|
| We've bee
have to be monolithic in actual implementation, but if
I were to build such a server from scratch, it would be more monolithic,
which would take mail directly from the incoming SMTP session and put it
directly in the mail store ... no queueing and no pickups ... just direct.
The thing is, such a m
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 09:58:30AM -0500, John Alton Tamplin wrote:
| Phil Howard wrote:
|
| >That would result in doubling the bandwidth on the inside server connection
| >since it would be dealing with the mail first coming in to the MX, then
| >being replicated back out to the oth
metadata
isn't in the current mailstore design.
--
-----
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/|
-
rtant).
--
-----
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/|
-
inly can be an issue.
--
-----
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/|
-
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:51:21AM -0500, John Alton Tamplin wrote:
| Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
|
| >On Tue, 04 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
| >
| >
| >>I wonder how well that method of replication works when both nodes
| >>cannot reach each other, and both are
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 08:25:35AM -0500, Brian wrote:
|
| Phil Howard said:
|
| > What's curious to me is how, with a Maildir format, that IMAP could be
| > implemented to retain that state without either storing some extra data
| > or updating the files in place.
|
| Maildi
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 07:20:57PM +0900, Mark Keasling wrote:
| Hi,
|
| On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 03:19:12 -0600, Phil Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
| > On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 02:16:36AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
| >
| > | On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
| > |
|
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:19:27AM +, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
| Rob Siemborski wrote:
| > On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
| >>| Doing replicated IMAP stores (espeically geographicly distanct ones) is
| >>| not an easy problem.
| >>
| >>It's easy if
s hard with the clutter of all the messages.
--
-----
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/|
-
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 02:16:36AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
| On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
|
| > Does the RFC say that the IMAP UIDs have to be the file name?
|
| No, of course not.
|
| > Do the IMAP UIDs have to be the same between different sessions?
|
| They cannot
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 09:18:47AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
| On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
|
| > 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 th
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 09:00:13AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
| On Mon, 03 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
| > Can you tell me if this is implemented by changing mailbox names adding
| > the domain name, or if it just simply keeps each domain in a separate
| > file tree mu
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 09:39:53PM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
| Phil Howard wrote:
| >
| > On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 10:12:52PM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
| >
| > | Quoting Phil Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| > |
| > | > On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 11:34:24AM
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 U
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 10:12:52PM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
| Quoting Phil Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
|
| > On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 11:34:24AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
| >
| > | On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
| > |
| > | > Is this done so transparen
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 11:34:24AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
| On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
|
| > Is this done so transparently with Cyrus-IMAP that it didn't
| > even need mention? Or is it not done at all?
|
| There are some unofficial hacks to do virtual dom
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 11:31:13AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
| On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
|
| > | Of course replicating some things such as seen state will be quite
| > | painful, and you may need to do some hacks to keep uids unique between
| > | the machines.
| >
fy a forwarding address instead of
a local delivery?
FYI: my MTA is Postfix.
--
-
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/|
-
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 08:33:41PM -0500, John A. Tamplin wrote:
| Phil Howard wrote:
|
| >One of the needs I have is to build a two-way mail store replica. Either
| >node may be delivered to, and either node may be accessed by the user but
| >only one at a time. The two
nges to both and some issues
that have to be dealt with as best as possible such as noting dates of
changes (it can be assumed the two nodes are time syncronized).
This is one of needs I have.
--
-----
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas
nvert it to LDAP or something.
--
---------
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/|
-
27;s the kind of thing I'm looking for regarding
the file formats.
--
-----
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/|
-
24 matches
Mail list logo
