Re: [Dovecot] Changing Quota downward for special Mailboxes? (2.1.6)
On Wed 19 Sep 2012 02:52:41 PM GMT, Jost Krieger wrote:
Oops, that's not what I want!
How about another command line parameter for lda to suppress the
emergency save? We know exactly when we are trying to save probable
spam.
I've tried my luck. Would the attached patch be sensible and welcome?
Yours
Jost Krieger
--
| jost.krieger+...@ruhr-uni-bochum.de Please help stamp out spam! |
| Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machineat RUB Comp. Center |
| Sincere words are not sweet, sweet words are not sincere.|
| Lao Tse, Tao Te King 81 |
diff -r 88a05f387743 doc/man/dovecot-lda.1.in
--- a/doc/man/dovecot-lda.1.in Thu Sep 27 02:55:14 2012 +0300
+++ b/doc/man/dovecot-lda.1.in Thu Sep 27 11:04:56 2012 +0200
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
.\
.SH SYNOPSIS
.B dovecot\-lda
-.RB [ \-ek ]
+.RB [ \-eEk ]
[\fB\-a\fP \fIaddress\fP]
[\fB\-c\fP \fIconfig_file\fP]
[\fB\-d\fP \fIusername\fP]
@@ -61,6 +61,10 @@
The default is to send a rejection mail ourself.
.\-
.TP
+.B \-E
+If mail delivery fails, don't try to do an emergency delivery attempt to INBOX.
+.\-
+.TP
.BI \-f\ envelope_sender
Envelope sender address.
.\-
diff -r 88a05f387743 src/lda/main.c
--- a/src/lda/main.cThu Sep 27 02:55:14 2012 +0300
+++ b/src/lda/main.cThu Sep 27 11:04:56 2012 +0200
@@ -310,7 +310,7 @@
master_service = master_service_init(lda,
MASTER_SERVICE_FLAG_STANDALONE |
MASTER_SERVICE_FLAG_DONT_LOG_TO_STDERR,
- argc, argv, a:d:ef:km:p:r:);
+ argc, argv, a:d:eEf:km:p:r:);
memset(ctx, 0, sizeof(ctx));
ctx.session = mail_deliver_session_init();
@@ -334,6 +334,9 @@
case 'e':
stderr_rejection = TRUE;
break;
+ case 'E':
+ ctx.suppress_emergency_delivery = TRUE;
+ break;
case 'f':
/* envelope sender address */
ctx.src_envelope_sender =
diff -r 88a05f387743 src/lib-lda/mail-deliver.c
--- a/src/lib-lda/mail-deliver.cThu Sep 27 02:55:14 2012 +0300
+++ b/src/lib-lda/mail-deliver.cThu Sep 27 11:04:56 2012 +0200
@@ -402,7 +402,7 @@
ret = mail_deliver_save(ctx, ctx-dest_mailbox_name, 0, NULL,
storage_r);
}
- if (ret 0 strcasecmp(ctx-dest_mailbox_name, INBOX) != 0) {
+ if (ret 0 !ctx-suppress_emergency_delivery
strcasecmp(ctx-dest_mailbox_name, INBOX) != 0) {
/* still didn't work. try once more to save it
to INBOX. */
ret = mail_deliver_save(ctx, INBOX, 0, NULL, storage_r);
diff -r 88a05f387743 src/lib-lda/mail-deliver.h
--- a/src/lib-lda/mail-deliver.hThu Sep 27 02:55:14 2012 +0300
+++ b/src/lib-lda/mail-deliver.hThu Sep 27 11:04:56 2012 +0200
@@ -49,6 +49,7 @@
struct var_expand_table *var_expand_table;
bool tried_default_save;
+ bool suppress_emergency_delivery;
bool saved_mail;
bool save_dest_mail;
/* Delivery failed because user is out of quota / disk space */
Re: [Dovecot] Changing Quota downward for special Mailboxes? (2.1.6)
On Tue 18 Sep 2012 07:17:50 PM GMT, Timo Sirainen wrote: On 18.9.2012, at 14.40, Jost Krieger wrote: ... The idea is to not eat up the users storage with spam, so that spam stays in the queue (for some time) while real mail gets delivered. Interesting idea. This was pretty easy to fix: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/74d639b2a5bf Thank you! Now, the next problem is that if LDA can't save the message to UCE-TMP because of quota failure it saves it to INBOX. I'm not really sure how that should be fixed, since generally it's a good idea to do it.. Oops, that's not what I want! How about another command line parameter for lda to suppress the emergency save? We know exactly when we are trying to save probable spam. Yours Jost Krieger -- | jost.krieger+...@ruhr-uni-bochum.de Please help stamp out spam! | | Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machineat RUB Comp. Center | | Sincere words are not sweet, sweet words are not sincere.| | Lao Tse, Tao Te King 81 |
Re: [Dovecot] Changing Quota downward for special Mailboxes? (2.1.6)
On Tue 18 Sep 2012 07:47:09 PM GMT, Robert Schetterer wrote: some allready existing way is i.e with milter and postfix tagged spam get in hold queue for i.e human admin investigate, or some quarantaine with amavis Human admin is not a good idea if you have 5 users :-) Quarantine's a possibility, but that's taking it out of Mail and adds complexity. for sure there are benefits getting dovecot involved in spam tagging but i would leave spam tagging to the mailserver in first way and deliver it to Junk folder by global sieve rule with giving more quota or ignoring Quota to Junk folder, but i see this isnt the same what you might wanna goal That's just what we want to do, *but* although it's in the Wiki I don't think it a good idea to *raise* the limit for the junk folder if you *deliver* to it. It's somewhat ok if you move mail there and someone picks it up (we do that with a different folder). But on delivery it means at some point you can receive spam but no real messages. Not nice. ignore may work if it does what I think (never even count bytes and messages in this folder) but it is open to abuse ... Yours Jost Krieger -- | jost.krieger+...@ruhr-uni-bochum.de Please help stamp out spam! | | Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machineat RUB Comp. Center | | Sincere words are not sweet, sweet words are not sincere.| | Lao Tse, Tao Te King 81 |
Re: [Dovecot] Changing Quota downward for special Mailboxes? (2.1.6)
Am 19.09.2012 14:53, schrieb Jost Krieger: On Tue 18 Sep 2012 07:47:09 PM GMT, Robert Schetterer wrote: some allready existing way is i.e with milter and postfix tagged spam get in hold queue for i.e human admin investigate, or some quarantaine with amavis Human admin is not a good idea if you have 5 users :-) Quarantine's a possibility, but that's taking it out of Mail and adds complexity. as ever ,this is different in different places specially Quarantine is wide used for sure there are benefits getting dovecot involved in spam tagging but i would leave spam tagging to the mailserver in first way and deliver it to Junk folder by global sieve rule with giving more quota or ignoring Quota to Junk folder, but i see this isnt the same what you might wanna goal That's just what we want to do, *but* although it's in the Wiki I don't think it a good idea to *raise* the limit for the junk folder if you *deliver* to it. It's somewhat ok if you move mail there and someone picks it up (we do that with a different folder). But on delivery it means at some point you can receive spam but no real messages. Not nice. ignore may work if it does what I think (never even count bytes and messages in this folder) but it is open to abuse ... there is no good or evil to this case, its a design question which may change in different places,, the abuse case might be acceptable, as the Junk folder i.e is imap special used autoconfigured and has auto empty feature, i give 50 mb plus quota on Junk folder and delete mail older then 3 month there Yours Jost Krieger -- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer
Re: [Dovecot] Changing Quota downward for special Mailboxes? (2.1.6)
On Wed 19 Sep 2012 04:03:45 PM GMT, Robert Schetterer wrote: as ever ,this is different in different places specially Quarantine is wide used Of course, it's often useful. there is no good or evil to this case, its a design question which may change in different places,, the abuse case might be acceptable, as the Junk folder i.e is imap special used autoconfigured and has auto empty feature, i give 50 mb plus quota on Junk folder and delete mail older then 3 month there The abuse may be tolerable, but I just don't get how your +50M works. For me it would mean that someone with a large Junk folder just wouldn't get an more mail except something delivered straight to Junk. And if you don't deliver to Junk but the clients move stuff there, there's still a problem. I'm justing raising the limit for folders that clients use for deleting (like Trash or whatever it is called). Yours Jost Krieger -- | jost.krieger+...@ruhr-uni-bochum.de Please help stamp out spam! | | Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machineat RUB Comp. Center | | Sincere words are not sweet, sweet words are not sincere.| | Lao Tse, Tao Te King 81 |
Re: [Dovecot] Changing Quota downward for special Mailboxes? (2.1.6)
Am 19.09.2012 16:25, schrieb Jost Krieger: On Wed 19 Sep 2012 04:03:45 PM GMT, Robert Schetterer wrote: as ever ,this is different in different places specially Quarantine is wide used Of course, it's often useful. there is no good or evil to this case, its a design question which may change in different places,, the abuse case might be acceptable, as the Junk folder i.e is imap special used autoconfigured and has auto empty feature, i give 50 mb plus quota on Junk folder and delete mail older then 3 month there The abuse may be tolerable, but I just don't get how your +50M works. the situation isnt really comparable, the plus is more configured for copy by human to i.e Junk folder, or i.e a client filter does this auto it makes most sense with trash, so user should mostly able to copy to trash, even if they have got full quota, this should avoid some errors in clients http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Quota/Configuration ... quota_rule = *:storage=1G quota_rule2 = Trash:storage=+100M quota_rule3 = SPAM:ignore ... For me it would mean that someone with a large Junk folder just wouldn't get an more mail except something delivered straight to Junk. And if you don't deliver to Junk but the clients move stuff there, with auto loosing mail after some time in my setup which is the anounced policy, Trash and Junk are autodeleted folders no mail there ,rests forever *g there's still a problem. I'm justing raising the limit for folders that clients use for deleting (like Trash or whatever it is called). as i said its a design question, your policy is ok too no flame ,having your idea as alternative is always fine to have Yours Jost Krieger -- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer
[Dovecot] Changing Quota downward for special Mailboxes? (2.1.6)
It seems there is no way to correct te quota limit downward for some
mailboxes, like:
quota_rule9 = UCE-TMP:storage=-10%%
The idea is to not eat up the users storage with spam, so that spam
stays in the queue (for some time) while real mail gets delivered.
There *is* a line
} else if (*value != '-' relative_rule) {
in quota.c, but nothing else handles it, starting with
quota_rule_parse_percentage.
Yours
Jost Krieger
--
| jost.krieger+...@ruhr-uni-bochum.de Please help stamp out spam! |
| Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machineat RUB Comp. Center |
| Sincere words are not sweet, sweet words are not sincere.|
| Lao Tse, Tao Te King 81 |
Re: [Dovecot] Changing Quota downward for special Mailboxes? (2.1.6)
On 18.9.2012, at 14.40, Jost Krieger wrote: It seems there is no way to correct te quota limit downward for some mailboxes, like: quota_rule9 = UCE-TMP:storage=-10%% The idea is to not eat up the users storage with spam, so that spam stays in the queue (for some time) while real mail gets delivered. Interesting idea. This was pretty easy to fix: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/74d639b2a5bf Now, the next problem is that if LDA can't save the message to UCE-TMP because of quota failure it saves it to INBOX. I'm not really sure how that should be fixed, since generally it's a good idea to do it..
Re: [Dovecot] Changing Quota downward for special Mailboxes? (2.1.6)
Am 18.09.2012 18:17, schrieb Timo Sirainen: On 18.9.2012, at 14.40, Jost Krieger wrote: It seems there is no way to correct te quota limit downward for some mailboxes, like: quota_rule9 = UCE-TMP:storage=-10%% The idea is to not eat up the users storage with spam, so that spam stays in the queue (for some time) while real mail gets delivered. Interesting idea. This was pretty easy to fix: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/74d639b2a5bf Now, the next problem is that if LDA can't save the message to UCE-TMP because of quota failure it saves it to INBOX. I'm not really sure how that should be fixed, since generally it's a good idea to do it.. some allready existing way is i.e with milter and postfix tagged spam get in hold queue for i.e human admin investigate, or some quarantaine with amavis for sure there are benefits getting dovecot involved in spam tagging but i would leave spam tagging to the mailserver in first way and deliver it to Junk folder by global sieve rule with giving more quota or ignoring Quota to Junk folder, but i see this isnt the same what you might wanna goal -- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer
