Re: [CSCMail-Users] Bad spam

[Meph I. <Me...@Ae...>]

  Hey, hey,

>  >	Last night, two pieces of spam came in with some 
>  >  format problem - cscmail crashes & closes when I 
>  >  click on them to delete them. 

>  What version CSCMail?

  That would be 1.6.1.

>  If you are using 1.7.x 

  Still haven't upgraded (updated...?).  S'pose I'd better get to
that, but with five workstations & a notebook all wanting to use the
lan & (other) software inadequacies, I've not had a chance.

>  Also, if you could (In the future) send me a copy of
>  any messages that do horrible things to CSCMail, it 
>  helps me to debug if I can see what is causing the 
>  obscene behavior.

  Normally I would.  Sorry about the other errors not having been
included, but a restart took care of them.  As for the nasty spam,
there was no error. I just clicked either of the two & cscmail just
disappeared.

>  >	Just out of curiosity, is that a function of the 
>  > database which lists the messages in such an 
>  > unfriendly manner, or did you do that for some 
>  > reason?  Even the annoying NSCommunicator 
>  > lists them by folder & makes them one big file 
>  > by that folder name.  If you'd made this setup, 
>  > wouldn't it have been easier to do it as either NSC
>  > or pine?

>  The reason, however that messages are all in 
>  seperate files is that:

>  1: no file access is needed to move a message from 
>  one folder to another, just an update to the index (ie: 
>  we use vFolders, have since version 1

>  2: it is much faster when viewing a message to just 
>  load and deal with a single file that  is the whole 
>  message.  Having to seek through a 20 meg file to 
>  find the one message you wish to view is a bit 
>  cumbersome.

  Granted.  But trying to administer a mailer which handles things as
this would turn a whole ~lot~ of Administrtors off.

>  You should know that Version 2.0.0 of CSCMail uses
> an MBOX format message store (similar to Netscape 
> and Pine)

  Ahh, now you're talkin'.  When might we see 2?

>   This "indexed MBOX" format is not "unique."  In 
>  fact, Netscape has always done something like this.
>  I modeled my format closely after a document 
>  discussing such things by the author of versions 2 
>  and 3 of Netscape Mail.

  Well, I know that the Windows version 2 was my favourite, & 3 was
useful when I was using Windows.

> Netscape 4 has bloated the index to such an extreme 
>  that it is no longer the same beast, and in fact, the 
>  index is often as much as 50% of the size of the MBOX
>  file,

  And this would only be ~one~ of all too many problems with NS 4.  I
wouldn't use in in Windows & had switched to pine for mail till pine
started having a problem no one can figure out.  I'd recently started
using KFM for graphical Web browsing (w3m for most browsing) &
haven't had much trouble.  I particularly like that I've not crashed
it;-).

>  while in CSCMail 2.0.0 the index for a 30 meg MBOX 
>  only takes up 700k (2%)

  Too cool.  Again, when will we see it?
  
>  Anyway, I hope I answered your questions...

  Yes.	Thank you.  While I've not been ~entirely~ pleased with some
things in 1.6.1 (like the database issue & that I can't move things
to a folder beyond the heitht of my screen), I've been overjoyed to
finally find a graphical mailer which actually does what cscmail does
(not half of the features I ~can~ use are in others).

  Meph

-- 
  "I did this 'cause Linux gives me a woody."
  -Dave '-ddt->' Taylor, announcing DOOM for Linux