Author: Dave C. Date: To: Tom Samplonius CC: Juha Saarinen, Peter Galbavy, Nigel Metheringham, Michael J. Tubby B.Sc. G8TIC, exim-users@exim.org Subject: Re: [Exim] Mail storage formats/ POP/IMAP/webmail daemon/etc..
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Tom Samplonius wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Juha Saarinen wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Peter Galbavy wrote:
> >
> >
> > > The problem is that the benchmark compares mbox and maildir formats. I
> > > suspect that the results would be very different if the default format were
> > > mbx.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean here -- I thought that was the purpose of the
> > benchmark? I know Sam's mixed in other metrics as well, to compare UW-IMAP
> > with Courier, but still the main idea seems to be a comparison of the two
> > storage formats (albeit with different programs).
> >
> > Courier only supports maildir.
>
>
> MBX is not the same as mbox.
>
> I think everything agrees that mbox is a bad format. So benchmarks
> against mbox always look good, because every other format is better. A
> benchmark between maildir and mbx, and maildir and Cyrus would be
> considerably more useful.
>
> Beware that Exim uses internal MBX support, rather than the WU library.
> This can pose compatibility problems. Marc Crispin (the author) certainly
> doesn't recommend anyone do this.
>
Well, while C-client supports what I beleive it calls 'black box' mode,
(where it reads new messages out of a standard mbox
/var/spool/mail/user, and moves them into, for instance, a tenex-format
mail.txt in a user home dir, for some formats, it does not appear to
offer any way to do that for MBX format - so the only way to use MBX
format is to deliver directly to that format. I am not aware of any MTA
(or 'deliver'-like utility) that uses C-client to make deliveries into
MBX format.
So how else could one use MBX with exim other than by using its internal
MBX driver?
