Re: pronto users ???
-- Michael D. Schleif <mds@helices.org> wrote
(on Thursday, 13 February 2003, 08:53 PM -0600):
>
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> >
> > -- Vineet Kumar <debian-user@virtual.doorstop.net> wrote
> > (on Thursday, 13 February 2003, 05:29 PM -0800):
> > > * Michael D. Schleif (mds@helices.org) [030213 14:16]:
>
> <snip />
>
> > > > <snip>... I am working on moving a 2GB, ~1000000
> > > > message, ~500 folder, ~400 messages per day mail archive to debian
> > > > woody. Currently, this is used by netscrape mail in an convenient and
> > > > elaborate hierarchy of folders sometimes (10) or more levels deep.
> > > >
> > > > I'm testing mutt; but, I have not found as convenient a solution to the
> > > > many nested subfolder syndrome, especially regarding the navigation of
> > > > folders from within mutt.
> >
> > What don't you like about the navigation? What kind of mail format are
> > you using (Maildir, mbox, MH...)? I use IMAP (more on that below), and I
> > like the ability to define mailboxes I use regularly for 'one stop
> > shopping', as well as being able to navigate my "tree" when I want to.
> > Best yet, I can do it all from my keyboard....
>
> Perhaps, that is what I am missing -- IMAP! In my posts here and on
> mutt-users, I am trying to describe my situation objectively and to
> avoid prejudice for options I am investigating. I have tossed out IMAP?
> as a possible solution; but, you are the only one to bite.
>
> I have used remote IMAP servers; but, not built one -- so, I do not know
> how nor if I can use to build a tree of 500-1000 subfolders/branches,
> 10-20 levels deep?
My understanding is that they're very robust, and support as many levels
deep as your filesystem allows (if not more -- it seems that they don't
really nest the same way that file hierarchies do).
<snip>
> > I used Pronto! for a few months a couple years ago, and recall liking
> > it. What I *didn't* like is that I recall it storing messages in a MySQL
> > database -- however, I see it now has support for mbox and Maildir, so
> > that's a moot issue. However, because it *did* use a database, the
> > programmer had done a nice job with nested folders (I think every
> > programmer at some point tries their hand at trees and folders).
>
> What do you *not* like about storing mail archives in a database? I've
> been thinking for sometime that that is where I'd like to end up -- what
> is the downside ???
Switching clients. If you use standard mailbox formats such as mbox, MH,
Maildir, and IMAP, most any *nix client (and most Windows ones, for that
matter) should be able to connect and read the message stores. However,
with database storage, the client utilizing it tends to create its own
db structure and storage format -- which won't transfer to a different
client.
<snip>
> Please, give me some pointers regarding IMAP. Do you believe that I can
> rigorously manage my growing mail system? Which IMAP?
For migrating to it, I'd set up your server, and then transfer your
mail, folder by folder, to the IMAP store from whatever store you've
been using -- most likely, whatever client you use (sounds like
Netscape) will be able to connect to the IMAP server, so you should be
able to do it in your familiar environment.
Then, just *use* it. All clients I've tried so far that have IMAP
support have all the necessary libraries for creating folders on the
fly, deleting them, renaming them, moving them, etc.
As for which IMAP server, you'll need to do some research as to your
needs. I'm using Courier, which has a nice, small footprint and is much
speedier compared to UW-IMAP; my understanding is it isn't as robust as
Cyrus, however. It handles my message stores readily, and I've had
absolutely no problems with it in the 18 months I've had it up and
running.
--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
matthew@weierophinney.net
Reply to: