On 2010-02-18 4:53 PM, Noel Butler wrote: >>> Personally I think the best way would be, if the user isn't over >>> quota at the time of a message delivery, deliver that message, >>> *regardless* of whether or not it puts the user over quota.
>> Wonder if there's anyone who wouldn't want this behavior? One >> exception could be that if mail is larger than the user's entire >> quota limit, it wouldn't be accepted. And this would happen only >> for deliver/lmtp, not imap append (because it would give user an >> error message directly). > I certainly wouldn't want to accept a message in this case, user > might be 1K under quota, but get 20m file now that might be a > whoopie doo :) but what if 130K users did same. Well, I'd argue that if you're allowing messages that big already for 130K users, then you should have enough spare storage to handle such a situation - although you and I both know the likelihood of even 10% of those 130K users encountering such a situation is next to null, so I don't think it's a valid argument. That said - in an enterprise environment like that, you'd be assigning group and domain level quotas too to keep any one group/customer from using up all of the storage on the server, right? -- Best regards, Charles
