On 17.7.2018 20:56, David B Funk wrote:
Not to mention, for years Mark Crispin adamantly opposed anything
greater than 32 bit code (for portability sake). So there may still be
dark corners of the UW/Panda IMAP code that will break on a 64 bit system.
According my experience, it's more stable om 64bit system. The "broken
start of mailbox" issue I mentioned has been so common issue I has been
asked to solve. With rise of 64B system it almost disappeared.
Just out of curiosity, any reason to stick with the "mbox" format?
There are others (EG: 1-file/message & MIX ) which don't have the size
limitation and have distinct performance advantages.
I can' withstand to answer you using your own footer:
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
Classic "UNIX" format used by most of MTA. It's de-facto standard. It's
simple and because its just text, it can be processed by simple tools
available on every system. And it can be read even with no tool at all.
Just remember the issue I described - broken mailbox can be corrected by
just text editor, or even automatically using sed.
For MBX I crafted own tool suitable to repair broken mailboxes. Even
with such tool I prefer standard UNIX format whenever possible (I fully
agree with you - standard is better).
For MIX no broken mailbox repair tool exists. I consider it unfinished
work I'm not ready to finish by self - as a result, I can't use it for
production deployment.
Finally, I hate 1-file/message format because large number of small
messages received will overload underlying filesystem (i-nodes are
limited resource) so I consider it so DoS prone.
Did I satisfied your curiosity ? ;-)
Dan
_______________________________________________
Imap-uw mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
