Re: [Evolution] Mailbox formats

On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 19:31, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:48 PM +0000 Nigel Metheringham
<Nigel Metheringham dev InTechnology co uk> wrote:

Not very compressible - too little plaintext to let
algorithms loose on plus compressing smaller than basic block size gains

Are you sure? Or is that only when compressing individual messages? 

That is for message at a time compression - or hooking zlib into your
fopen.  Obviously building them into a single file (tar/cpio) and
compressing them would be fine, zip might work less well.

I'd also like to point out mbx format, the format promoted by the UW-IMAP
people. It's a many-messages-per-file format but it's designed for update.
As it's a binary format, it can't be easily hand-edited, and the use of
c-client library functions for maintenance is preferred. (I'm still using
mbox, so this is my regurgitation of what I remember from a visit to the
UW-IMAP site.)

Its a relatively obscure format, although I believe the big Oxford
University mail system was implemented on MBX (using exim for delivery -
they contributed the MBX code as I recall).


[ Nigel Metheringham           Nigel Metheringham InTechnology co uk ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]