Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Edward C. Zimmermann wrote: > Quoting Jason Hunter <jhunter@a...>: > >> If you divide 60 Gigs by 4,000,000 emails that's 15k per email. That's >> bigger than I would have guessed an average email to be, but you have to >> take into account the full headers and the influence of the (relatively >> few) binary attachments. > > Even with "full headers" I think 15k average message size (excluding > attachments) is suspect. Only on xml-dev could the results of "du -h" against scp'd files be taken into question. :) > A chunk of email headers could-- if one is bothering > to clean things up-- be excluded as about the path of email transmission > and not content. In a service its not really of interest to anyone how > the mail arrived and got bounced around in one's own network--- and often > we don't want to even publish such information. On MarkMail we definitely don't need to show the world the full headers -- but we have found several situations where having the full headers has been useful. Example: Having full Received headers gives you insight to when people are (unintentionally) lying with their Date headers. > My philosophy is to try to tackle whatever representation model is thrown > at me. Mail is a model. This way I can throw XML, mail and all kinds of > other inputs into a big heap, search them (exploiting their structure), > retrieve bits (exploiting their structure for unit of retrieval) and, should > I desire, convert on the fly into other representations.. With a semantic > crosswalk one can do some really really wacky things :-) Sounds fun. Where can I see this in action? (Sorry, I don't know your background, so when you say "we can..." I don't know where to look.) -jh-
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
