>Received:	by krypton.rain.com (rnr)
	via rnr; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:05:52 PST
To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-Article-From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Remove me
From:	shadow AT krypton DOT rain DOT com (Leonard Erickson)
Message-ID:	<20821.170552.9O1.rnr.w165w@krypton.rain.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:05:52 PST
In-Reply-To:	<200208212036.g7LKaQJ01683@envy.delorie.com>
Organization:	Shadownet
X-Mailer:	rnr v2.20
Reply-To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

In mail you write:

>> I see. On the other hand this implies, that *many* people might
>> be interested in it, so it appears to be really useful - not
>> only for me. Hm, maybe we could try to host these archives elsewhere?
>
> "automatically" means I add it to my archive system, which includes
> djgpp and cygwin mail archives - hundreds of thousands of emails.  I
> would like to think about this some more before committing - perhaps
> "last N days" or "this week" might be reasonable compromizes?
>
> The worst case is when someone uses "download for offline viewing" and
> ends up with a dozen copies of each of the thousands of emails because
> they ended up following links for *all* the download options.
>
> Plus, zip is a bad choice for compression.  .tar.bz2 would give a much
> smaller total file size.  But that's harder to use in a non-unix
> environment.

Perhaps RAR "solid" archives?

As I understand it, with the "solid" option, it builds the table after
examining all the files to be added, and then runs it over the whole
batch. This produces much smaller archives at the cost of having all
files become unrecoverable if there's a glitch in the table.

-- 
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow{G})
 shadow AT krypton DOT rain DOT com        <--preferred
leonard AT qiclab DOT scn DOT rain DOT com     <--last resort

- Raw text -