Hi, I think id does make sense to have such a functionality. No reason to keep archived emails in the main storage if hey are rarely accessed. Not sure on what solution to adopt as there are many possible ways to achieve this.
One thing that I am thinking of is to provide a Composite Mailbox implementation. A rough sketch is bellow: This composite mailbox implementation could delegate actual processing to a couple of implementations. Each implementation could manage a group of folders. This solution could solve this use case by: - keep normal folders inside a database using jpa implementation - keep archived emails in a Maildir or S3 storage etc, possibly on slower, less expensive systems. I haven't given a lot of thought to this so I'm not sure if it is even possible at the moment, but I think the pattern has some merit. Regards, Eugen On 09.05.2018 07:46, Benoit Tellier wrote: > Hi Jerry, > > There is currently no solution to do what you describe. There is no > "custom storage treatment" for archived mails. > > I did not address nor faced this problem, thus can not really help you. > > Cheers, > > Benoit Tellier > > Le 09/05/2018 à 02:08, Jerry Malcolm a écrit : >> I realize this is a completely off-the-wall question... but has there >> been any discussion about breaking the JAMES db into multiple >> databases? I have a bunch of clients, each with a bunch of accounts. >> And they all want to archive all of their mail and be able to access it >> through the same mail client. As the years go by, the db just keeps >> growing and growing. This became acutely obvious when I was recently >> forced by my server provider to migrate to newer hardware, and I >> realized I had to have mail down for a long time while I transferred a >> 60gB+ file across a slow connection to the new server. The db size is >> also making daily backups a problem. >> >> The reality is that 90% of the mail is archived into 'year' folders for >> each of the accounts which are basically "read-only" now. Only a >> relatively small amount of mail is truly in dynamically updated >> folders. If there was a way to store "/archives/2002" folders through >> "/archives/2017" folders in one db and all of the other folders in >> another db, it would make backup and migration a much simpler task. >> >> Ok, I'm pretty sure that isn't in the immediate plan. But just let me >> put my vote in. Alternatively, is there any alternative to having one >> ever-growing mail db? Is there some trick with the db server that can >> present one logical db from multiple db files? (I know a lot about >> databases... but there's still a bunch I don't know). Has anyone else >> faced/addressed this problem? Or is the answer to just live with it? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jerry >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscr...@james.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-h...@james.apache.org >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscr...@james.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-h...@james.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscr...@james.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-h...@james.apache.org
