On 2/23/22 19:12, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> * Robert Moskowitz:
>
>> What I am seeing is that many of the packages
seem to roll the
>> messages into some SQL database.
> Do they?
Packages like iRedMail list email stored in the database
of your
choice. Of course this is just their web blurb, and I
have yet to find
one of these that suit my needs. More and more, I am
looking at rolling
my own again. Challenge has always been integrating the
anti-virus.
Clamav has been quite the challenge.
>> My Dovecot setup uses the
/home/vmail/doman/../{cur,new,etc} tree
>> structure.
> That's the classic Maildir format. Widely supported,
works fine if file
> system nodes are not a scarce commodity. Dovecot
supports other formats
> (see
https://doc.dovecot.org/admin_manual/mailbox_formats/)
as well, but
> I still use Maildir because it is required by
Notmuch, which is my
> software of choice for handling all my mailing list
subscriptions.
I liked Maildir at the time and still do. Only a 1,000+
emails a day.
My wife keeps a lot (10K messages) on the server, I keep
all of my
various boxes on the server small. So do my other users.
> Personally, I would not use a relational database as
a mail store unless
> specifically required by the mail system of your
choice. Email is not
> organised in a way that benefits from a RDB.
I was there for the beginning of RDB. Almost had NOMAD
shoved down my
throat (UNIVAC) and did work with RIM (BCS) then R:Base.
Was gamma
release site of DB2, where we worked out how to do a UNION
which was not
supported in the original design. I have seen email
systems that stuff
the messages into RDB and really wonder if the hammer
really fits.
>
>> Is there some nice packed mailserver I can drop
on a Centos-arm server
>> that has Dovecot under the covers and I can
easily rsync my current
>> mail store to it?
> As far as migrating content is concerned, you're
better off using some
> form of IMAP synchronisation. This method is not
dependent on the
> underlying mail store format, and it preserves the
IMAP flags for your
> existing messages.
I did see that mentioned once, and have down to research
it. Thanks for
the pointer.