From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Enrico Weigelt Subject: git for mail synchronization Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 20:10:13 +0100 Message-ID: <20110306191013.GA12688@nibiru.local> Reply-To: weigelt@metux.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Mar 06 20:13:46 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PwJOj-0003EQ-Nk for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Mar 2011 20:13:46 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753405Ab1CFTNj (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Mar 2011 14:13:39 -0500 Received: from caprica.metux.de ([82.165.128.25]:41452 "EHLO mailgate.caprica.metux.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752610Ab1CFTNj (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Mar 2011 14:13:39 -0500 Received: from mailgate.caprica.metux.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.caprica.metux.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p26JB1E7010477 for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 20:11:01 +0100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mailgate.caprica.metux.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with UUCP id p26JAxaH010467 for git@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 20:10:59 +0100 Received: (from weigelt@localhost) by nibiru.metux.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) id p26JAD5B017342 for git@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 20:10:13 +0100 Mail-Followup-To: git@vger.kernel.org Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Terror: bin laden, kill bush, Briefbombe, Massenvernichtung, KZ, X-Nazi: Weisse Rasse, Hitlers Wiederauferstehung, 42, X-Antichrist: weg mit schaeuble, ausrotten, heiliger krieg, al quaida, X-Killer: 23, endloesung, Weltuntergang, X-Doof: wer das liest ist doof Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi folks, I'm currently thinking about using git for mail synchronization. The scenario: * multiple hosts share a set of maildirs where new mails can be added or removed arbitrarily (using non-conflicting filenames, eg. their sha-hashes) * on each host, the current tree is committed in some time interval * the hosts pull from each other and merge in the other's trees. Could this work well ? cu -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt@metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme ----------------------------------------------------------------------