Re: DBMail 2.3.0 released

Hi,

About this new feature:

a whole new storage setup for messages using what I've
dubbed single-instance storage: identical mime-parts are
never stored more than once in the database. This means the
dbmail_messageblks table is now officially deprecated. 2.3
code is still capable of retrieving messages from the
messageblks table, but will not use it during insertion.



I added this as a feature request/wish list on the Wiki page
and someone said this was already implemented in 2.2 by
using suppress_duplicates in dbmail.conf.

So what is the difference here?

Thanks

Khanh
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

Hum
Imagining one situation.

One email with an attach with name "123456.zip",
with the same size, but
with different data inside the .zip file?


-----Original Message-----
From: dbmail-bouncesdbmail.org [mailto:dbmail-bouncesdbmail.org] On Behalf
Of Aleksander Kamenik
Sent: segunda-feira, 17 de Dezembro de 2007 19:31
To: DBMail mailinglist
Subject: Re: [Dbmail] Re: DBMail 2.3.0 released

khanh.truong1800GOTJUNK.COM wrote:
> I added this as a feature request/wish list on the Wiki
page and someone
said this was already implemented in 2.2 by using
suppress_duplicates in
dbmail.conf.
> 
> So what is the difference here?

If you send two identical emails (the same messege-id) to
the same 
account, then only the first one will show up in your inbox.
The second 
one will be silently dropped. Saving you the hassle of
looking at the 
same email twice.

The new storage model in 2.3 helps, if two accounts receive
the same 
.zip file as attachments to some mails, then the .zip
attachment would 
be stored in the db only once. Saving disk space on the
server.

Totally different features.

HTH,

-- 
Aleksander Kamenik
system administrator
+372 6659 649
aleksanderkrediidiinfo.ee

Krediidiinfo AS
http://www.krediidiinfo.e
e/
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

khanh.truong1800GOTJUNK.COM wrote:
> I added this as a feature request/wish list on the Wiki
page and someone said this was already implemented in 2.2 by
using suppress_duplicates in dbmail.conf.
> 
> So what is the difference here?

If you send two identical emails (the same messege-id) to
the same 
account, then only the first one will show up in your inbox.
The second 
one will be silently dropped. Saving you the hassle of
looking at the 
same email twice.

The new storage model in 2.3 helps, if two accounts receive
the same 
.zip file as attachments to some mails, then the .zip
attachment would 
be stored in the db only once. Saving disk space on the
server.

Totally different features.

HTH,

-- 
Aleksander Kamenik
system administrator
+372 6659 649
aleksanderkrediidiinfo.ee

Krediidiinfo AS
http://www.krediidiinfo.e
e/
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

On Montag, 17. Dezember 2007 Daniel Urstöger wrote:
> but all with the same file size? I wonder if the guys
are
> implementing some kind
> of checksum too, then it won´t matter at all, I
assume...

There was some discussion about that in summer, and yes,
there are of 
course checksums. By the time it was found that SHA256 would
be 
sufficient IIRC, but I don't know what Paul has used now.

So there shouldn't be any realistic collision possible.

mfg zmi
-- 
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc    -----      http://it-management.at
// Tel: 0676/846 914 666                     
.network.your.ideas.
// PGP Key:         "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi.asc | gpg
--import"
// Fingerprint: EA39 8918 EDFF 0A68 ACFB  11B7 BA2D 060F
1C6F E6B0
// Keyserver: www.keyserver.net                   Key-ID:
1C6FE6B0

_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

Paul,

My experience was a bit bad!
So, i backup's the DB, and compiled the trunk code, started
dbmail and... 
cabum!
i have a few warnings, but i'm sure they are not the
problem.

---
/usr/local/src/postfix/dbmail_svn/dbmail/src/sievecmd.c:370:
warning: the 
use of `tempnam' is dangerous, better use `mkstemp'
creating dbmail-sievecmd

dm_debug.c: In function 'trace':
dm_debug.c:109: warning: passing argument 1 of 'gethostname'
from 
incompatible pointer type

top.c: In function 'parse_scoreboard':
top.c:235: warning: unused parameter 'scoreBuf'
top.c:235: warning: unused parameter 'scoreboard'
top.c: At top level:
top.c:236: warning: 'parse_scoreboard' defined but not used
---


attached there's a log file, when i select the "Sent
Items" of one or 
another account, in the log it complains about mysql, that
the connection 
has been lost, wich is not really correct, any ideia what it
could be?
MySQL 5.0.51 here, from debian SID.


---
ec 19 01:01:52 lira dbmail/imap4d[18394]: Info:[imap] 
imap4.c,IMAPClientHandler(+203): COMMAND: [hqbd SELECT
"Sent Items"]
Dec 19 01:01:52 lira dbmail/imap4d[18394]:
Debug:[imapsession] 
dbmail-imapsession.c,build_args_array_ext(+2805): arg[0]:
'Sent Items'
Dec 19 01:01:52 lira dbmail/imap4d[18394]: Info:[imap] 
imap4.c,IMAPClientHandler(+314): Executing command
select...
Dec 19 01:01:52 lira dbmail/imap4d[18394]: Debug:[db] 
dm_db.c,db_findmailbox(+2578): looking for mailbox with FQN
[Sent Items].
Dec 19 01:01:52 lira dbmail/imap4d[18394]: Debug:[sql] 
dbmysql.c,db_query(+301): query [SELECT mailbox_idnr FROM
dbmail_mailboxes 
WHERE name LIKE 'Sent Items' AND owner_idnr=8]
Dec 19 01:01:52 lira dbmail/imap4d[18394]: Error:[sql] 
dbmysql.c,db_query(+304): [Lost connection to MySQL server
during query] 
[SELECT mailbox_idnr FROM dbmail_mailboxes WHERE name LIKE
'Sent Items' AND 
owner_idnr=8]
Dec 19 01:01:52 lira dbmail/imap4d[18394]: Debug:[db] 
dbmodule.c,db_query(+154): last query took [0] seconds
Dec 19 01:01:52 lira dbmail/imap4d[18394]: Error:[db] 
dm_db.c,db_findmailbox_owner(+2706): could not select
mailbox 'Sent Items'
---
---




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul J Stevens" <paulnfg.nl>
To: "DBMail mailinglist" <dbmaildbmail.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Dbmail] Re: DBMail 2.3.0 released


Jorge Bastos wrote:
> Hum... ok Paul,
> Gonna update, just two more question.
>
>
> After the upgrade, there's no turning back, right?

Yes there is, it's just that messages inserted by 2.3 can't
be retrieved
by 2.2. Older messages are not a problem. If it doesn't work
for you,
simply install 2.2.8 and drop the dbmail_partlists and
dbmail_mimeparts
tables.

> There's no need to run dbmail-util -b right?

correct.


>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dbmail-bouncesdbmail.org
[mailto:dbmail-bouncesdbmail.org] On 
> Behalf
> Of Paul J Stevens
> Sent: terça-feira, 18 de Dezembro de 2007 20:55
> To: DBMail mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [Dbmail] Re: DBMail 2.3.0 released
>
> Jorge Bastos wrote:
>> Paul,
>> In the changelog you have the change details for
day 2007-12-17 double.
>
> fall out from pushing git changes into the svn repo.
>
>> Can I update now using the last trunk or now yet?
>>
>
> Yes, the trunk is ok. All tests pass again afaict. And
I've been testing
> with mysql and postgres today after landing a layout
change of the
> code-tree.
>


-- 
 
____________________________________________________________
____
  Paul Stevens                                      paul at
nfg.nl
  NET FACILITIES GROUP                     GPG/PGP:
1024D/11F8CD31
  The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

Paul,
What do you think could this be?
Or there was something that was fixed meanwhile since
yesterday night?



-----Original Message-----
From: dbmail-bouncesdbmail.org [mailto:dbmail-bouncesdbmail.org] On Behalf
Of Jorge Bastos
Sent: quarta-feira, 19 de Dezembro de 2007 1:20
To: DBMail mailinglist
Subject: Re: [Dbmail] Re: DBMail 2.3.0 released

Paul,

My experience was a bit bad!
So, i backup's the DB, and compiled the trunk code, started
dbmail and... 
cabum!
i have a few warnings, but i'm sure they are not the
problem.

---
/usr/local/src/postfix/dbmail_svn/dbmail/src/sievecmd.c:370:
warning: the
use of `tempnam' is dangerous, better use `mkstemp'
creating dbmail-sievecmd

dm_debug.c: In function 'trace':
dm_debug.c:109: warning: passing argument 1 of 'gethostname'
from
incompatible pointer type

top.c: In function 'parse_scoreboard':
top.c:235: warning: unused parameter 'scoreBuf'
top.c:235: warning: unused parameter 'scoreboard'
top.c: At top level:
top.c:236: warning: 'parse_scoreboard' defined but not used
---


attached there's a log file, when i select the "Sent
Items" of one or
another account, in the log it complains about mysql, that
the connection
has been lost, wich is not really correct, any ideia what it
could be?
MySQL 5.0.51 here, from debian SID.


---
ec 19 01:01:52 lira dbmail/imap4d[18394]: Info:[imap]
imap4.c,IMAPClientHandler(+203): COMMAND: [hqbd SELECT
"Sent Items"] Dec 19
01:01:52 lira dbmail/imap4d[18394]: Debug:[imapsession]
dbmail-imapsession.c,build_args_array_ext(+2805): arg[0]:
'Sent Items'
Dec 19 01:01:52 lira dbmail/imap4d[18394]: Info:[imap]
imap4.c,IMAPClientHandler(+314): Executing command
select...
Dec 19 01:01:52 lira dbmail/imap4d[18394]: Debug:[db]
dm_db.c,db_findmailbox(+2578): looking for mailbox with FQN
[Sent Items].
Dec 19 01:01:52 lira dbmail/imap4d[18394]: Debug:[sql]
dbmysql.c,db_query(+301): query [SELECT mailbox_idnr FROM
dbmail_mailboxes
WHERE name LIKE 'Sent Items' AND owner_idnr=8] Dec 19
01:01:52 lira
dbmail/imap4d[18394]: Error:[sql]
dbmysql.c,db_query(+304): [Lost connection to MySQL server
during query]
[SELECT mailbox_idnr FROM dbmail_mailboxes WHERE name LIKE
'Sent Items' AND
owner_idnr=8] Dec 19 01:01:52 lira dbmail/imap4d[18394]:
Debug:[db]
dbmodule.c,db_query(+154): last query took [0] seconds Dec
19 01:01:52 lira
dbmail/imap4d[18394]: Error:[db]
dm_db.c,db_findmailbox_owner(+2706): could not select
mailbox 'Sent Items'
---
---




----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul J Stevens" <paulnfg.nl>
To: "DBMail mailinglist" <dbmaildbmail.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Dbmail] Re: DBMail 2.3.0 released


Jorge Bastos wrote:
> Hum... ok Paul,
> Gonna update, just two more question.
>
>
> After the upgrade, there's no turning back, right?

Yes there is, it's just that messages inserted by 2.3 can't
be retrieved
by 2.2. Older messages are not a problem. If it doesn't work
for you,
simply install 2.2.8 and drop the dbmail_partlists and
dbmail_mimeparts
tables.

> There's no need to run dbmail-util -b right?

correct.


>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dbmail-bouncesdbmail.org
[mailto:dbmail-bouncesdbmail.org] On 
> Behalf
> Of Paul J Stevens
> Sent: terça-feira, 18 de Dezembro de 2007 20:55
> To: DBMail mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [Dbmail] Re: DBMail 2.3.0 released
>
> Jorge Bastos wrote:
>> Paul,
>> In the changelog you have the change details for
day 2007-12-17 double.
>
> fall out from pushing git changes into the svn repo.
>
>> Can I update now using the last trunk or now yet?
>>
>
> Yes, the trunk is ok. All tests pass again afaict. And
I've been testing
> with mysql and postgres today after landing a layout
change of the
> code-tree.
>


-- 
 
____________________________________________________________
____
  Paul Stevens                                      paul at
nfg.nl
  NET FACILITIES GROUP                     GPG/PGP:
1024D/11F8CD31
  The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

>>>>> "Jani" == Jani Partanen
<jiipeesotapeli.fi> writes:

Jani> Every time when you hash something what is bigger
than your
Jani> returned hash, there can be collision.

The odds of a collision with a cryptographically strong hash
are
infinitesimal.

Sha1 is not perfect, but even if its actual strength is
closer to say 72
bits than its theoretical maximum strength (which is 80 bits
for a 160
bit long hash), the odds of a collision are two small to
worry about.

You still talking about one chance in on the order of
100000000000000000000.

The sha2 family does provide more bits.  And whirlpool¹
seems to have
consensus as the “best� choice currently available.  But
sha1 is still
good enough for general use.  

-JimC

1] http://en.wik
ipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool_(cryptography)
   http://planeta.terra.com.br/informatica/p
aulobarreto/WhirlpoolPage.html
   ISO/IEC 10118-3 http:
//www.incits.org/ref-docs/FDIS_10118-3.pdf

-- 
James Cloos <cloosjhcloos.com>         OpenPGP:
1024D/ED7DAEA6
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

>>>>> "Matija" == Matija Grabnar
<matija+dbmailserverflow.com> writes:

Matija> Anybody who claims that does not understand the
mathematics
Matija> behind the birthday paradox (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox)

Yes, the birthday paradox is relevant.  But it doesn't
change the fact
that cryptographic hashes have -- usually after considerable
(and often
rehashed  debate --
been found to be sufficiently secure to use as
keys for object stores in a wide variety of industries and
applications.

Including in the financial sector.

Paul isn't treading new ground here.

That said, debate is good, fun and highly constructive.  Let
it continue!

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloosjhcloos.com>         OpenPGP:
1024D/ED7DAEA6
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

|> Yes, the birthday paradox is relevant.

I should've been more precise.  The borthday paraox is in
fact the
reason why one uses a 2n-bit hash to equal the strenght of
an n-bit
symmetric cypher.  So I did implicitly take the paradox into
account
in my first post.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloosjhcloos.com>         OpenPGP:
1024D/ED7DAEA6
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail