MBOX-Line: From janssen at parc.com  Sun Jul 12 15:41:05 2009
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Bill Janssen <janssen@parc.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:42 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] off-topic: stats on mail duplication,
	mailing list sizes, etc?
In-Reply-To: <4A5A5CA5.6020709@imap.cc>
References: <97903.1247435045@parc.com> <4A5A5CA5.6020709@imap.cc>
Message-ID: <98779.1247438465@parc.com>

David Rauschenbach <davidr@imap.cc> wrote:

> In a MIME store, lots of people forward the same attachment, but in
> each case, the part header as different headers. Some MUAs use a
> content-type "name" attribute field-param to store the file name,
> others use the Content-Disposition "filename" field-param, etc. But in
> both cases, you really want to store the 15 MB zip file attachment
> just once.

Yes, I should really do that, too.  I'm close already; attachments are
stored as separate UpLib documents, with pointers to that document in
the message.  But the pointers are document IDs, not document
fingerprints, so duplicates are possible.

> As for what is profitable, I think Facebook, Twitter, et. al. are
> successfully demonstrating that, en-masse, communication is routing
> around the dinosaur e-mail protocols. Techies like us (especially the
> older and the entrenched) are usually the last to wake up to the new
> reality.

Perhaps.  I'm already thinking about a Google Wave server for UpLib.

Bill

