Hi Gang,
  Well, this thread clearly proves +AFs-as if we didn't already know+AF0- that
Microsoft is in league with disk manufactures to keep them in business, too
bad it didn't work for HP.:-)

  Seriously, why don't more e-mail systems use a database to maintain the
message directory and/or the contents?  Answer: they would be too slow and
expensive, and every database need an occasional +ACI-re-org,+ACI- so what would be
the gain?   This strikes me as much like the Y2K thing, sort sighted
information technology thinking, or else it is an serious mark against
current database technology.  I got started thinking about this as we
continue to move from HPDesk to HPOpenmail - from a system that does use a
database to one that uses the file system (and +ACo-lots+ACo- of little files).  In
14 years if using HPDesk, we've never had to fix the message store +AFs-we
stopped doing re-orgs on it when we moved to MPE/iX+AF0-, but in using Openmail
2 years, we've had to fix structural problems twice and go through one
migration of the store.  Of course, we now have 2000 Openmail accounts and
Desk never had more than 350 or so.  Interestingly, it appears the major
limitations on performance of an Openmail system are disk i/o and sendmail
(if Internet activity is high).  Surely the disk bottleneck would apply to
HPDesk, too.

  Instead of seeing the message store as having critical and confidential
documents with the beginnings of personal and shared document management
using universal access, that should be managed with all the knowledge us
Data Processing folks know so the mail system just keeps running and running
and running, vendors and PD software systems often employ sloppy, cheap,
simple, or complex, unique, and proprietary techniques +AFs-these could be
called a database, but...+AF0- are used to maintain the message store.

  On the other hand, where is the database technology that will manage it's
internal structures and data store to maintain efficiency, capacity, etc.,
all automatically on-line +AFs-or at least based on some rules set up by the dat
abase administrator+AF0- for 365 access?  let's see, if HP (or Adager) adds
auto-re-org online capability to Image/sql, and HP finishes the Master set
dynamic capacity expansion.., but no, it still wouldn't get smaller
automatically, same problem as Outlook.

  On the 3rd hand, if Outlook was designed to use the same store for all of
it's folders +AFs-maybe it does, but the other messages in this thread suggest
that it doesn't+AF0-, then it really wouldn't matter as much since the empty
space wouldn't be multiplied as large messages are moved into folders and
then eventually moved into the trash.

  So, obviously, we all just need bigger disk drives.:-)

Have a great Sunday+ACE-
Richard Gambrell