sure, a backup is a copy from whatever you are currently using - but a backup from your database IS a copy of your database, by whatever means created (e.g. select file in finder and copy it directly there or e.g. via eMA and told to NOT trash copied messages). but it is different then an archive where you no longer keep the data in the active application (e.g. via eMA and told TO TRASH copied messages), and it was that point I wanted to make clear without introducing (seemingly to a new user) too much complexity.
---marlyse ---------------------------------------- >Marlyse Comte told us: >>a backup is a copy of a file, either on the same drive, or an external >>drive or a cd-rom or something other external, meant to be there if the >>original file gets corrupted or anything the like happens. >> >>an archive is something stored away for potential later retrieval and no >>longer residing in the active database. keeps the active database slim, >>lean and fast while still allowing access (if needed) to older information. > >Marlyse, I think I'm not agreeing 100% with your terminology. For me a >backup is a copy of *data*, not just files. An archiver application like >eMa can also be used for backups, that is copying *the data*, ie in this >case the content, to preferrably another physical medium *while keeping* >the same data in the main storage. Data may live in a 1:1 relation to the >physical file, but simetimes they are not identical and backing up >content may be a better idea. Independence of main storage DB corruption >is one reason. > >Even if I prefer to maintain a big mail DB, as I want my messages at my >fingertips, I may still need to backup new messages with another solution >besides making a copy of my very big Db files every week (or heaven >forbid every day even less so). So I don't see why I would be content >with copying the Db files every time, just because I have a big DB. > >
