On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 06:10 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
>
> > 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 mess
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Charles Marcus wrote:
Ahh... so, this would only be a [potential] problem in the case of [a]
user[s] that didn't login for a long time... and I guess you could even
deal with that by some kind of nightly cron job...
A cron job
On 2010-02-19 3:16 AM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 2010-02-18 11:09 AM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
>>> Actually, I once had a system where the request was "we do not
>>> send over quota notices, all mails have to arrive". Hence,
>>> deliver should have no quo
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 behav
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-02-18 11:09 AM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
Actually, I once had a system where the request was "we do not send over
quota notices, all mails have to arrive". Hence, deliver should have no
quota - well,
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 16:20 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 09:05 -0500, Charles Marcus 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
On 2010-02-18 11:09 AM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
> Actually, I once had a system where the request was "we do not send over
> quota notices, all mails have to arrive". Hence, deliver should have no
> quota - well, a very high quota actually -, but a quite strick IMAP quota.
So simply leaving everythi
On 18 February 2010 16:41, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> It's not about how much work adding that setting is. It's that I don't
> think there should be settings for stuff that (almost) everyone sets
> only one way. Useless extra settings cause bugs and bloat, both to code
> and documentation.
Understood
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Charles Marcus wrote:
But in the modern age, just delivering mail until the quota is exceeded
then rejecting seems to be the simplest thing to do, and imo should be
the default...
You change the "quota" from a (hard) limit to
On 2010-02-18 9:57 AM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
> But I'd like the "deliver a message if user is under quota and the
> message is smaller than quota".
> Or an option "deliver may exceed the quota by X", sort of like the
> quota_rules for Trash, but for the service. Possible not all scenarios
> can twe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 15:57 +0100, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
But I'd like the "deliver a message if user is under quota and the message
is smaller than quota".
The current behavior? Is that what you really m
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 15:57 +0100, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
> But I'd like the "deliver a message if user is under quota and the message
> is smaller than quota".
The current behavior? Is that what you really meant?
> Or an option "deliver may exceed the quota by X", sort of like the
> quota_rule
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Sven Eulberg wrote:
Over quota is over quota...
Perhaps it's better to drop a line in the user's inbox e.g. 'mail from
m...@address.com rejected because there was not enough space in your inbox...'
or something else.
So both s
> On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 09:05 -0500, Charles Marcus 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
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 16:29 +0200, Warren Baker wrote:
> I am not sure how much work it would involve but I would prefer to
> have a config option to either disable or enable the behaviour.
It's not about how much work adding that setting is. It's that I don't
think there should be settings for st
On 18 February 2010 16:20, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
> 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 wo
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 09:05 -0500, Charles Marcus 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
17 matches
Mail list logo
