Hi There,
Is there a way to customise the bounce back if a quota is full, or is
this a thing for postfix?
Thanks
Simon
> I read the RFC, and along with it being terse to the point of
> (IMHO)inadequately describing what's happening, it basically
> looks like it's a way for a user to set their own restrictions.
> That might make sense if we supported per-mailbox quotas and
> message limits (I don't think we have
Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> We *do* have the column to set it. I'll have a look at the RFC, to see
> what's needed for the SETQUOTA command. If we can't do that without
> changing too much, then the solution proposed by Wolfram is the way to
> go for now.
I read the RFC, and along with
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:06:15 -, Aaron Stone
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >> Hm couldn't setquota be implemented using a default answer
> >> as described in the RFC:
> >> "NO - setquota error: can't set that data"
> >
> > Sounds easy enough. Ilja, wh
Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Hm couldn't setquota be implemented using a default answer
>> as described in the RFC:
>> "NO - setquota error: can't set that data"
>
> Sounds easy enough. Ilja, what's your take?
What's the problem with setting quotas? Are these per-mailbox quotas th
Strict rfc compliance is a distant goal at the moment, I'm afraid.
Wolfram A. Kraushaar wrote:
I think we need setquota before we can announce quota capability.
Hm couldn't setquota be implemented using a default answer
as described in the RFC:
"NO - setquota error: can't set that data"
So
I think we need setquota before we can announce quota capability.
Hm couldn't setquota be implemented using a default answer
as described in the RFC:
"NO - setquota error: can't set that data"
If you adhere strictly to the standards: Isn't the UTF-8
charset support missing in the SORT Extension
I think we need setquota before we can announce quota capability.
Wolfram A. Kraushaar wrote:
I was wondering why QUOTA got commented out in the
IMAP_CAPABILITY_STRING in imap4.h although the IMAP
commands GETQUOTA and GETQUOTAROOT seem to work fine?
--
Wolfram
__
I was wondering why QUOTA got commented out in the
IMAP_CAPABILITY_STRING in imap4.h although the IMAP
commands GETQUOTA and GETQUOTAROOT seem to work fine?
--
Wolfram
I think the qouta handling done in the wrong way.
first: sort.c
2 times try for deliver, it wold be enought only one.
quota qives back SN_CLASS_TEMP; and so the mail will be hold by the local
MTA so it is not good..
it should give back DSN_CLASS_FAIL (5) to avoid that.
It can be solved easel
cvs is updated :-)
Armin Groesslinger heeft op dinsdag, 20 mei 2003 om 21:01
(Europe/Amsterdam) het volgende geschreven:
Hello,
I had a look at the query used in pgsql/dbpgsql.c to calculate the
used quota
in db_get_quotum_used(). I executed the current query (with "size"
instead of
"m
Hello,
I had a look at the query used in pgsql/dbpgsql.c to calculate the used quota
in db_get_quotum_used(). I executed the current query (with "size" instead of
"m.size")
SELECT SUM(messagesize)
FROM messages
WHERE mailbox_idnr IN
(SELECT mailbox_idnr
FROM mailboxes
WHERE own
12 matches
Mail list logo
