On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 11:50 -0700, Steve Thomas wrote:
So - like I said - this is visionary stuff. Think SQL - think outside
the box.
It's not all that visionary. Microsoft's been working on WinFS - a SQL
based system for storing files - for years. It's supposed to have been
released as a
...
Well - I'm a member of the Exim cult - but if something better comes
along I might convert. :)
And you're not even British:) Actually I count Exim in the short
list of well done and readily usable/useful MTAs (i.e. works as expected,
not can be made to work). Still, I'm partial to
So - like I said - this is visionary stuff. Think SQL - think outside
the box.
It's not all that visionary. Microsoft's been working on WinFS - a SQL
based system for storing files - for years. It's supposed to have been
released as a part of longhorn (vista), but they're pushing it back.
I'm
On Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:52 PM -0700 kbaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is visionary in that it is not the norm, but again DBMail does all of
this very well and has been production quality for quite some time.
I asked on the Dovecot list about how Dovecot compares to DBMail and got
this
Kenneth Porter wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:52 PM -0700 kbaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It is visionary in that it is not the norm, but again DBMail does
all of
this very well and has been production quality for quite some time.
I asked on the Dovecot list about how Dovecot
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 01:23:35PM -0600, wrote:
I would defer to the smart people to figure out the details. However I do
wonder if the actual body content of the message would be best stored in a
file and the SQL used to store anything and everything you would want
On Jun 9, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
After considerable experimenting and thinking things through I thought
I'd start a thread on the future of email to start planting the seeds
of
where MTA development needs to go. I'm convinced that someday soon we
will all realize that MBOX and
On Jun 9, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
MS Exchange... one big Database
Exactly...
And that is one reason why I wouldn't touch this SQL idea with a 10
foot
pole.. the fact that Exchange works this way only proves my point... I
hear
all the time about Exchange servers crashing and
On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
If we are talking about making a SQL application that is usable for
a multitude of people then why lock them into something. That's the
easiest way to drive them away from supporting it.
Word. Perl can play nice with plenty of RDBMSs.
John Rudd wrote:
On Jun 9, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
After considerable experimenting and thinking things through I thought
I'd start a thread on the future of email to start planting the seeds of
where MTA development needs to go. I'm convinced that someday soon we
will all
John Rudd wrote:
I had been thinking about how feasible it would be to re-implement
dbmail in perl..
and maybe a decent perl MTA to put in front of it too (something that
will work with sendmail milters...).
Then you could be pretty database agnostic. Just whatever perl wants
to put
This is still visionary so take it for what it's worth. People are more
familiar with MAILDIR and MBOX because they are files. You can read them
with VI and PICO and FGREP and all the stuff that we are familiar with.
MySQL is also easy but might require new tools and some learning. Once
you
On Jun 13, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
and maybe a decent perl MTA to put in front of it too (something that
will work with sendmail milters...).
I think that a local delivery program could be written fairly easily
that Exim or any other existing MTA could
John Rudd wrote:
On Jun 13, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
and maybe a decent perl MTA to put in front of it too (something
that will work with sendmail milters...).
I think that a local delivery program could be written fairly easily
that Exim or any other
Thank you for a very well thought out *open* message. I would guess that most of
these reasons are why DBMail was started 5 years ago ;)
I'm gonna response with some pro-DBMail stuff... just because it's in my head
and pretty much addresses all of Marc's comments below.
Marc Perkel wrote:
PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 June 2006 23:16
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: The Future of Email is SQL
MS Exchange... one big Database
Exactly...
And that is one reason why I wouldn't touch this SQL idea with a 10 foot
pole.. the fact that Exchange works this way only proves my
I can't recall seeing any mention in this thread of DBmail (dbmail.org),
which already exists and is an all-in-one SMTP/POP3/IMAP server with MySQL
or Postgres message storage (with support for SQLite on the way). It's been
in development for three or four years, and from what I remember is
Mike Jackson wrote:
I can't recall seeing any mention in this thread of DBmail (dbmail.org),
which already exists and is an all-in-one SMTP/POP3/IMAP server with
MySQL or Postgres message storage (with support for SQLite on the way).
It's been in development for three or four years, and from
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Having said all that; it's nearly impossible to get a general-purpose RDBMS
to outperform an optimized storage format
Indeed. I refer back to the wondrous success Microsoft Exchange has had.
It *isn't* SQL. It's a hand-crafted, JET-backend specifically written to
be
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 06:16:15PM -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
MS Exchange... one big Database
Exactly...
And that is one reason why I wouldn't touch this SQL idea with a 10 foot
pole.. the fact that Exchange works this
Steve Thomas wrote:
While this is quite an interesting topic, I have to ask why it's on the
spamassassin list. Message stores aren't spamassassin specific and this is
already a pretty high-volume list. Does this discussion really belong
here?
St-
The reason I posted it here as well as
Gary W. Smith wrote:
It's getting there, albeit slowly. I think that if you rule out any up
and coming application but it's just not there yet we wouldn't have an
opensource community...
We have a variety of reasons for using MySQL, most of them aren't good
ones though but it's something
Sur 2006-06-09, Marc Perkel skribis:
Perhaps the headers and other information that you would index
be kept in the database and the body of the message stored
somewhere else, perhaps even as files.
It seems that this is what Zimbra does. Check out my blog post
here:
For IMAP, SQL just
NM Public wrote:
Sur 2006-06-09, Marc Perkel skribis:
Perhaps the headers and other information that you would index be
kept in the database and the body of the message stored somewhere
else, perhaps even as files.
It seems that this is what Zimbra does. Check out my blog post here:
I would defer to the smart people to figure out the details. However I do
wonder if the actual body content of the message would be best stored in a
file and the SQL used to store anything and everything you would want to
index. That would keep the SQL file size down if that's an issue.
"fast enough" is a value judgement.
Fast enough may be ok, if you have a few hundred or even a few thousand
users, saving small mailboxes.
In a large scale system, where you have a million users, each of which
has thousands of messages, I doubt any current database, SQL or other
will have
From: NM Public [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sur 2006-06-09, Marc Perkel skribis:
Perhaps the headers and other information that you would index
be kept in the database and the body of the message stored
somewhere else, perhaps even as files.
It seems that this is what Zimbra does. Check out my blog
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 01:23:35PM -0600, wrote:
I would defer to the smart people to figure out the details. However I do
wonder if the actual body content of the message would be best stored in a
file and the SQL used to store anything and everything you would want to
index. That
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 01:23:35PM -0600, wrote:
I would defer to the smart people to figure out the details. However I do
wonder if the actual body content of the message would be best stored in a
file and the SQL used to store anything and everything you would want
After considerable experimenting and thinking things through I thought
I'd start a thread on the future of email to start planting the seeds of
where MTA development needs to go. I'm convinced that someday soon we
will all realize that MBOX and MAILDIR are obsolete technologies and
that
My point here is - think outside the
box. I'm going to be lobbying IMAP server developers to include SQL
backends. exim could pipe data into a local delivery agent, or it can have
features written to write directly to the SQL backend.Thoughts .
?
Because I am an SQL dummy, I do have
wrote:
My point here is - think outside the box. I'm going to be lobbying IMAP
server developers to include SQL backends. exim could pipe data into a
local delivery agent, or it can have features written to write directly
to the SQL backend.
Thoughts . ?
That would be about 500 gigs of email. Fry's Electronics has drives that size
on special for $189. So - I'd say yes, should be fairly easy to scale up to
that size and beyond.
You really think one 500 gig disk is going to give you anywhere close to
the performance you need to accomodate 500
That would be about 500 gigs of email. Fry's Electronics has drives
that size on special for $189. So - I'd say yes, should be fairly easy to scale
up to that size and beyond.
I believe it would be approx 200 Gigs
Marc Perkel wrote:
wrote:
My point here is - think outside the box. I'm going to be lobbying IMAP
server developers to include SQL backends. exim could pipe data into a
local delivery agent, or it can have features written to write directly
to the SQL backend.
Thoughts . ?
We are
| Between two mail gateways and three toasters we have 14 disks that never
| stop seeking, never, 24/7/365. A consumer grade storage device would
| scream mommy and wet itself.
|
| DAve
OK, I'm sorry for changing the subject but I have had good results with 18 and
36 GB IBM SCSI
drives.
What
OK, I'm sorry for changing the subject but I have had good results with 18 and
36 GB IBM SCSI
drives.
What do you use?
I generally use Seagate. Used to use IBM/Hitachi and Fujitsu. Still
would if they were easier to find in stock around here. Have used
Quantums, and long long ago
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
wrote:
Because I am an SQL dummy, I do have this question. Would aps like Mysql
and Postgres be able to handle 10,000+ users with an average of 50 MB of
email? I really don't know.
Also, does the body just get written to a table?
That would
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:25:52PM -0600, wrote:
My point here is - think outside the box. I'm going to be lobbying IMAP
server developers to include SQL backends. exim could pipe data into a
local delivery agent, or it can have features written to write directly
to the SQL backend.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 09,
2006 1:19
PM
To:
users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: The Future of
Email is
SQL
After considerable experimenting and thinking things through I thought
I'd start a thread on the future of email to start planting the seeds
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:25:52PM -0600, wrote:
My point here is - think outside the box. I'm going to be lobbying IMAP
server developers to include SQL backends. exim could pipe data into a
local delivery agent, or it can have features written to
-Original Message-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 4:19 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: The Future of Email is SQL
Thoughts . ?
-
MS Exchange... one big Database
You can use Exmerge to do
wrote:
| Between two mail gateways and three toasters we have 14 disks that never
| stop seeking, never, 24/7/365. A consumer grade storage device would
| scream mommy and wet itself.
|
| DAve
OK, I'm sorry for changing the subject but I have had good results with 18 and
36 GB IBM SCSI
MS Exchange... one big Database
Exactly...
And that is one reason why I wouldn't touch this SQL idea with a 10 foot
pole.. the fact that Exchange works this way only proves my point... I hear
all the time about Exchange servers crashing and the administrator having to
rebuild the database while
-Original Message-
From: Rob McEwen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 6:16 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: The Future of Email is SQL
MS Exchange... one big Database
Exactly...
And that is one reason why I wouldn't touch this SQL idea
Greg Allen wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rob McEwen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 6:16 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: The Future of Email is SQL
MS Exchange... one big Database
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Rob McEwen wrote:
MS Exchange... one big Database
Exactly...
And that is one reason why I wouldn't touch this SQL idea with a
10 foot pole.. the fact that Exchange works this way only proves
my point... I hear all the time about Exchange servers crashing
and the
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:50:03PM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Gary,
I'm trying to introduce the idea of a MySQL backend to Timo over at
Dovecot. He has done a little work in that direction already. But - I'm
throwing this idea out there right now just to get people thinking. I'm
hoping
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 06:16:15PM -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
MS Exchange... one big Database
Exactly...
And that is one reason why I wouldn't touch this SQL idea with a 10 foot
pole.. the fact that Exchange works this way only proves my point... I hear
all the time about Exchange servers
While this is quite an interesting topic, I have to ask why it's on the
spamassassin list. Message stores aren't spamassassin specific and this is
already a pretty high-volume list. Does this discussion really belong
here?
St-
with for some
time.
-Original Message-
From: Jim C. Nasby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 9:05 PM
To: Marc Perkel
Cc: Gary W. Smith; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: The Future of Email is SQL
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:50:03PM -0700, Marc Perkel
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 09:16:10PM -0700, Gary W. Smith wrote:
It's getting there, albeit slowly. I think that if you rule out any up
and coming application but it's just not there yet we wouldn't have an
opensource community...
We have a variety of reasons for using MySQL, most of them
of Email is SQL
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 09:16:10PM -0700, Gary W. Smith wrote:
It's getting there, albeit slowly. I think that if you rule out any
up
and coming application but it's just not there yet we wouldn't have
an
opensource community...
We have a variety of reasons for using MySQL
If we are talking about making a SQL application that is usable for
a multitude of people then why lock them into something. That's the
easiest way to drive them away from supporting it.
Word. Perl can play nice with plenty of RDBMSs. If this discussion
belongs here at all, I can't
54 matches
Mail list logo
