On 2010-06-21 9:26 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> BTW, I'm pretty sure mailbox_size_limit affects both mbox and maildir:
> For obvious reasons this will rarely affect maildir users (unless they receive
> 50MB attachments),
Correct - I had to set both, because we do have to deal with very large
atta
Charles Marcus put forth on 6/21/2010 4:43 PM:
> On 2010-06-21 5:31 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Charles Marcus put forth on 6/21/2010 12:23 PM:
>>> On 2010-06-21 12:20 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Set in /etc/postfix/main.cf
mailbox_size_limit = 0
>
>>> That's generally never a good ide
On 2010-06-21 5:31 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Charles Marcus put forth on 6/21/2010 12:23 PM:
>> On 2010-06-21 12:20 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> Set in /etc/postfix/main.cf
>>>
>>> mailbox_size_limit = 0
>> That's generally never a good idea (sets it to unlimited). Much better
>> to just set it t
Charles Marcus put forth on 6/21/2010 12:23 PM:
> On 2010-06-21 12:20 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Set in /etc/postfix/main.cf
>>
>> mailbox_size_limit = 0
>
> That's generally never a good idea (sets it to unlimited). Much better
> to just set it to a sane limit.
That's a purely subjective statem
On 2010-06-21 12:20 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Set in /etc/postfix/main.cf
>
> mailbox_size_limit = 0
That's generally never a good idea (sets it to unlimited). Much better
to just set it to a sane limit.
"If you don't wanna get bit in the ass, don't do things in such a manner
that they can come
Johannes Dröge put forth on 6/20/2010 1:25 PM:
> Hello,
>
> I am having this error message on some rare emails with more than 6 mb
> or so. Neither the dovecot server nor the filesystem where the maildir
> resides have any quota or are full at the time of delivering.
>
> The mails goes getmail->p
Hello,
I am having this error message on some rare emails with more than 6 mb
or so. Neither the dovecot server nor the filesystem where the maildir
resides have any quota or are full at the time of delivering.
The mails goes getmail->postfix->dovecot delivery agent
Is the mail written to an
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 23:06, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Charles Marcus put forth on 6/10/2010 10:19 AM:
>> On 2010-06-10 3:31 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> BTW, anyone who has a 44MB INBOX should be slapped repeatedly about the
>>> cranium and then educated about POP and IMAP, and how each should be
On 2010-06-11 10:06 AM, Rodolfo González González wrote:
> Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 2010-06-11 9:21 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
>> When I said 'them', I meant free services in general, but yeah, I was
>> mostly talking about gmail. I only mentioned hotmail specifically
>> because that was the only on
Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-06-11 9:21 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
When I said 'them', I meant free services in general, but yeah, I was
mostly talking about gmail. I only mentioned hotmail specifically
because that was the only one I remembered specifically where someone
lost *all* of their email.
On 2010-06-11 9:21 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 09:17 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> They're actually pretty reliable... but for me its more the privacy (or
>> lack thereof) issue that keeps me from using them more...
> eh? you have far more risk of privacy invasion from google
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 09:17 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
>
> They're actually pretty reliable... but for me its more the privacy (or
> lack thereof) issue that keeps me from using them more...
>
eh? you have far more risk of privacy invasion from google (by their own
admission so they know ho
On 2010-06-10 11:23 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> I wonder how often Google does full disaster recovery off site
> backup/mirroring of all those millions of _free_ 7GB mailboxen.
> AFAIK, Google makes no guarantees WRT mailbox contents. They may have
> full multi site redundancy, but I've yet to rea
Timo Sirainen put forth on 6/10/2010 10:54 PM:
> On 11.6.2010, at 4.23, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Jakob Curdes put forth on 6/10/2010 10:54 AM:
>>
>>> Same here, we run a mailbox_size_limit of 700MB and have several users
>>> regularly hitting the limit.
>>> Can't really slap them as they would r
On 11.6.2010, at 4.23, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Jakob Curdes put forth on 6/10/2010 10:54 AM:
>
>> Same here, we run a mailbox_size_limit of 700MB and have several users
>> regularly hitting the limit.
>> Can't really slap them as they would reply " on google I have 7 GB mail
>> space".
>
> I won
Jakob Curdes put forth on 6/10/2010 10:54 AM:
> Same here, we run a mailbox_size_limit of 700MB and have several users
> regularly hitting the limit.
> Can't really slap them as they would reply " on google I have 7 GB mail
> space".
I wonder how often Google does full disaster recovery off site
Charles Marcus put forth on 6/10/2010 10:19 AM:
> On 2010-06-10 3:31 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> BTW, anyone who has a 44MB INBOX should be slapped repeatedly about the
>> cranium and then educated about POP and IMAP, and how each should be used.
>
> So, Stan, how much will you charge to come do t
On 2010-06-10 1:24 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> Create a folder for them called "Google" and tell them to move mail
> from their INBOX over to the "Google" folder because it has lots more
> space :-)
The sad thing is, this would probably work for most of them...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:54, Jakob Curdes wrote:
>
>
> Am 10.06.2010 17:19, schrieb Charles Marcus:
>>
>> On 2010-06-10 3:31 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> BTW, anyone who has a 44MB INBOX should be slapped repeatedly about the
>>> cranium and then educated about POP and IMAP, and how each
Am 10.06.2010 17:19, schrieb Charles Marcus:
On 2010-06-10 3:31 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
BTW, anyone who has a 44MB INBOX should be slapped repeatedly about the
cranium and then educated about POP and IMAP, and how each should be used.
So, Stan, how much will you charge to come do t
On 2010-06-10 3:31 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> BTW, anyone who has a 44MB INBOX should be slapped repeatedly about the
> cranium and then educated about POP and IMAP, and how each should be used.
So, Stan, how much will you charge to come do the honors for me?
It will probably be in the neighborho
On 2010-06-09 6:40 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> I missed your using system accounts so Charles may be on the right
> track, you need to find the size of your existing mailbox,
> search for mailbox_size_limit if you have not altered this value in
> main.cf use postconf -d to see its value, about 50M
Noel Butler put forth on 6/9/2010 5:40 PM:
> I shouldn't do lists before I finish my first coffee of teh day :->
I forgive you Noel. :)
> I missed your using system accounts so Charles may be on the right
> track, you need to find the size of your existing mailbox,
> search for mailbox_size_l
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 08:28 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 21:48 +0200, Johannes Dröge wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am having this error message on some rare emails with more than 6 mb
> > or so. Neither the dovecot server nor the filesystem where the maildir
> > resides ha
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 21:48 +0200, Johannes Dröge wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am having this error message on some rare emails with more than 6 mb
> or so. Neither the dovecot server nor the filesystem where the maildir
> resides have any quota or are full at the time of delivering.
>
> The mails go
On 2010-06-09 3:48 PM, Johannes Dröge wrote:
> message:
> *sieve: info: started log at ...
> error: msgid=: failed to store into mailbox 'INBOX': Not enough
> disk space.
postconf -n output?
Hello,
I am having this error message on some rare emails with more than 6 mb
or so. Neither the dovecot server nor the filesystem where the maildir
resides have any quota or are full at the time of delivering.
The mails goes getmail->postfix->dovecot delivery agent
Is the mail written to an
27 matches
Mail list logo
