>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 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 Received: from krypton by qiclab.scn.rain.com; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:55 PDT Content-Type: text 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 Precedence: bulk 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