[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <200302280849580502.00288F54@192.168.0.1>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:49:58 +1100
From: "Daniel" <daniel@...vatecage.com>
To: popa3d-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Mailbox Size Limit
Hi Jakob,
....This is what I've read about the shortcomings of the mbox format....
-A machine may crash while it is delivering a message which means that the message
will be silently truncated.
-A machine may have two programs simultaneously delivering mail to the same user.
If the programs do not use some locking mechanism, the central file will be corrupted.
-A user may try to delete messages from his mailbox at the same moment that the
machine delivers a new message. The user's mail-reading program must
know what locking mechanism the mail-delivery programs use.
-The use of NFS may exacerbate all of the above problems, as some NFS implementations don't provide any
reliable locking mechanism.
Assuming all of the above to be true, I have to agree with you. The maildir delivery format seems the
better way to go.
But, why should -i- have to change this? (And, if you don't mind me asking, how do).
Why isn't it used by default?
Considering the shortfalls, the mbox format doesn't seem to be the logical way to do it.
Not in the 20th centrury anyway.
regards,
hotdiggedydog
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 27/02/2003 at 2:46 pm Jakob Hirsch wrote:
>Daniel wrote:
>
>> Is there any other tweak I should make when increasing this limit?
>
>yes: drop bsd-mailboxes, switch to Maildir.
>reading 100MB everytime a user logs in is not very efficient.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
