From: Daniel Stenberg (Daniel.Stenberg@sth.frontec.se)
Date: Mon Apr 26 1999 - 16:20:50 CDT
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, John Finlay wrote:
> I meant the code intentionally drops some attachments (e.g. virtual
> business cards).
Ah, but that's only if you tell it to. You can define a list of content-
types you don't want it to save. Those vcard things is a perfect examples I'd
say.
> It seems that memory would be a problem in any event for large mailboxes
> even if they aren't full of large attachments.
They can become easily become so, yes.
> To avoid memory allocation problems, it would seem that dumping the
> bodies out to individual files or alternatively dealing with each message
> completely before reading the next would provide the lowest memory cost
> by avoiding the allocation for each body line.
Yes. But we mustn't avoid memory allocations at all costs either, imho. It
would probably give us quite some penalty to first save down the bodies to
files and then later save the headers and append the bodies upon the headers.
Or would it be acceptable? Has anyone every really had the need for this kind
of actions?
--
Daniel Stenberg - http://www.fts.frontec.se/~dast
ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol