Also.. it means that inbox tables are the same as other repository tables, which effectively means that you might use one single table for inboxes _and_ other functions. Don't ask me why, the point is that it isn't a rule you could be 100% confident of .
d. On 22/06/05, Jason Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Gulbrandsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 21 June 2005 22:35 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: db schema question > > > > Greetings, > > > > james creates a table named 'inbox' (or whatever one configures it to > > be). This table has a composite id on inbox.message_name and > > inbox.repository_name. It seems to me that inbox.repository_name is > > always the users.username for the owner of the email in the inbox > > table. Is this supposition correct? > > IIRC it is. However it will change when I get round to implementing the IMAP > stuff as you might well have mg as the inbox (same as it is now) and > mg/Trash mg/Junk etc as the repository names > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mark > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
