On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 18:29 +0800, zamri wrote:
>
>
> On 7/16/07, Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jorge Bastos wrote:
> > Aaron,
> >
> > My suggesting is never run without one, at least one
> argument, for all,
> > i woul'd say "--all-users" or "--all" or similar.
> > What do you thing?
> > I'm not making this as a rule, just a sugestiong, tell me
> what you think.
>
> I agree here. Exporting all should never occur by accident.
>
> Yes. It shouldn't.
>
> Suggestion:
>
> dbmail-export = dbmail-export --help = dbmail-export -h
>
> Export all users: dbmail-export --all = dbmail-export -a (with a
> confirmation) = dbmail-export --all = dbmail-export -ay (without
> confirmation) = dbmail-export --all --yes
Thanks, unfortunately this would change existing behavior. I need to
preserve the basic syntax:
User foo all mailboxes:
dbmail-export -u foo
User foo mailbox box:
dbmail-export -u foo -m box
User foo mailbox box dumped into file file:
dbmail-export -u foo -m box -o file
Since I think being able to dump users by pattern is very useful,
(thanks for the suggestion, Geir!), and "-u *" comes for free at that
point, adding a separate -a/--all seems redundant.
Now we have the possibilities of:
All users:
dbmail-export -u *
All users mailboxes named spam:
dbmail-export -u * -m spam
Users starting with 'fo' mailboxes named spam dumped into a single
giant mbox file (think spam training corpus!):
dbmail-export -u fo* -m spam -o fo_spam
It might have been nice to require "-m *" or "-m * -r" to dump all
mailboxes, but that would break the old behavior of dumping everything
for the user if you didn't give a mailbox name.
Does all this seem reasonable? Please poke holes in the syntax if you
find something that doesn't make sense!
Aaron
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
