Tim Lapin on 9/21/07 said >Barbara Needham wrote: >> Michael J. Hußmann on 9/21/07 said >> >>> Jeremy Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >>> >... > >>> my message database is still >>> under 200 MB. As you can guess, I am not at all concerned about the 2 GB >>> limit, as I am not likely to ever hit that 2 GB limit during my >>> lifetime. Maybe that's a fairly typical user experience? >> >> I have 700 MB since 2002 but that is after compacting the database. And I >> do not get huge volumes of e-mail. > >I guess what we need to understand here is people's conception of "huge >volumes". Some of us will never approach 2 GB, while others seem to be >flirting with it on almost a daily basis. > >So, is a huge volume of mail: > >-- more than "X" messages a day? > >-- more than "Y" MB a day of email, excluding attachments (which aren't >part of the database)? > >-- something else? > >Clearly, an email package with strengths in one place (eg searching) and >weaknesses in other places (eg smaller database sizes) needs to be put >into the context of the expected use.
Well, huge is anything that makes your database get "too big.' And I do kind of disagree with your last point, since the strength of the searching is the very thing that makes me want to keep all my mail hanging around. I've been able to search easily and quote exact answers from previous e-mails when necessary or useful. If I couldn't search it all I might not bother keeping it! -- Barbara Needham
