Re: [Summary] discussion about attachments

From: <>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 17:31:47 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <>

In our previous episode, Paul Haldane said:
> ...
> > Should we use DIR_PREFIXER/num or just DIR_PREFIXER-num?
> >
> > It makes sense to use DIR_PREFIXER/ if we can move the attachment directory
> > to another volume and mount it there, without breaking links (should
> > be thought in advance). Otherwise, we can save n x months inode and n times
> > one char ('/'), by using DIR_PREFIXER-num.
> >
> > A more customizable option would be to be able to choose the directory
> > (none, DIR_PREFIXER, another path), and the -num prefixer (DIR_PREFIXER,
> > nothing). Then everyone can configure hypermail as he wants :)
> If the user sets DIR_PREFIXER to be for example
> .../listname/attach/message
> then doesn't that mean that we can use DIR_PREFIXER-num whilst retaining
> the benefits of DIR_PREFIXER/num (ie we have a fixed directory name with
> all of the attachments stored below).
> DIR_PREFIXER/num feels slightly neater to me, although DIR_PREFIXER-num
> would probably be more efficient both in terms of indoes used (as you say)
> and possibly access time - don't know if it would make any _noticeable_
> difference.

In fact, Daniel had already used DIR-PREFIXER-num (maybe in response to one of my last month's messages). As hypermail doesn't propose yet any option for changing DIR-PREFIXER to something else, I'll leave it as it is. We can improve it later (or someone else can do it in the meantime).

-Jose Received on Fri 03 Sep 1999 05:31:23 PM GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu 22 Feb 2007 07:33:51 PM GMT GMT