I will not debate eventual OSX folder limitations, tech stuff of which I don't know too much, but for the record I must say this:
Please DO NOT confirm to the norm* mentioned below. The PowerMail "attachment behaviour" is the first and very reason why I went back to PowerMail after a year with Entourage. I don't get thousands of attachments, but I do get a lot and they are big. I deal with "raw" musical files (like hard disk recordings etc) and high resolution graphical/video files, and it's not unusual for me to receive attachments that are half a GB or bigger. As I also travel a lot, it's very easy to forget the "minor" ones ranging from 5-50 MB when I get back and have a few 100 mails to deal with. Man, talk about large databases after half a year... So what I want to say is we all have different needs, and I'm so happy PowerMail offers an alternative to one big, oversized database. And this is for the same reasons you mention: I like to keep all mails I get just in case, and I also like to keep all attachments for a while just in case. After some time I want to get rid of the attachments I don't need, but keep the mails. If the attachments are all in the same folder it's done in a few seconds. If the attachments are stored embedded in the mail itself, I have to manually look through hundreds or thousands of mails in all different mail folders to see which carry attachments, and then delete the attachments one by one = it will never be done, because it takes too much time. This problem would remain even with a solution with separate mail folder databases, if the attachments are embedded. Best, Max Gossell *Btw: The word "norm" could be debated in this case -- the big dragons Microsoft and Apple let everything go into one big database, yes, but what I remember from the mid 90-ies the "norm" was to put attachments in a separate folder, just like PowerMail does. When I switched over to Entourage I was amazed about what an incredibly "backward" solution they had chosen regarding attachments, but thought "hey, that's Microsoft -- remember?". Then Mail.app came, using the same solution... -- Max Gossell Progetto Avanti - The Swedish Guitar Project Warner Classics International Recording Artists http://www.progettoavanti.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- At 18 mars 2003, 15.20 CET, Bob Seaner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm not advocating any changes, but I do wish to bring this to the >attention of the user base in case they are concerned over this >requirement. If I move my users over to PowerMail, it will take no time >at all for them to have attachments numbering in the thousands. And >since filed messages are an ever increasing quantity, (for all practical >purposes, I don't live in an ideal world) the number of attachments >landing in that one directory is open-ended. This makes browsing for an >attachment considerably more problematic. (I am considering making a >separate volume just for attachments. With this setup, any dragging of >attachments from an email to another directory will be by very nature a >copy and not a move. This has some ramifications that need to be >explained to users.) > >One possible solution would be for PowerMail to keep the attachments with >the email the way it arrived. Other mail programs do this, in fact, most >email programs do this. I suspect this is a non-starter with the >PowerMail developers. Since the current method is counter to the norm, >they probably have strong convictions about doing it any other way. One >ramification of keeping the attachments as part of the message is that >the single mail database file would grow alarming large in very short >order. One way to fix that is to use separate databases for each filed >mail folder, which is also the norm. Consequently, having separate >databases for each filed mail folder allows for more practical >incremental file backups. > >I know the PowerMail team has put much thought into these issues. While >we may or may not agree with their choices, (and are free to use another >program if we don't like them) it would be nice to have an understanding >why they chose to do things the way they have in light of the fact that >the PowerMail way, at least on the surface appears not to, theoretically >speaking, scale well with larger and larger amounts of filed mail. > > >Respectfully, > >Bob Seaner
