On Friday, January 13, 2006, 04:08:29, Bonno Bloksma wrote: >> There's no requirement that the storage mechanism that IMail uses should >> be understandable by anything other than an IMail process. > > That would be great if the "the storage mechanism that IMail uses" has no > other impact. However, by now two incidents hare occured where the new > mechanism has some impact. A mail archiving tool and a virusscanner. Both > finding mails that should no longer be there.
They are both looking at an internal structure the format of which may be changed at each new relaease. > What I am asking for is in line with your suggestion, that only IMail now > how things work, I would then like IMail to have a mechanism to circumvent > the impact of the changes made. In my case a way to force purging a mailbox. And what if the next release compresses each message in the mailbox? Are you then going to ask for an option to not compress it? > Your suggestion would be the same like "nothing needs to understand the > filesytem but the OS". That's great as long as the OS has ALL the toold > needed for both normal operations as well as problem situations. As we both > know that is not the case there are multiple tools that understand what a > FAT, NTFS, etc filesystem is. The tools either use defined APIs or need to be upgraded whenever the structure of the filesystem changes. Your complaint about IMail is like complaining that Microsoft implementing NTFS makes your old Norton DOS Utilities no longer work. You should be complaining to the implementors of your mail archiving tool and virus scanner, not to Ipswitch. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rod Dorman A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
