[Dovecot] 1.0 roadmap - fs quota problem

[Dumitru Negara]

Hi,

I have a problem with fs quota which I can still reproduce on latest CVS 
snapshot (dovecot-20060612.tar.gz).

My OS is a Debian Sarge with 2.6.15 kernel.

# lsmod|grep quota
quota_v2               10240  0

# mount|grep sda9
/dev/sda9 on /home type xfs (rw,usrquota)
I also tried on 1.0beta8 with reiserfs partition with same results.

# cat /etc/mtab |grep sda9
/dev/sda9 /home xfs rw,usrquota 0 0

# repquota -u /dev/sda9
*** Report for user quotas on device /dev/sda9
Block grace time: 7days; Inode grace time: 7days
                        Block limits                File limits
User            used    soft    hard  grace    used  soft  hard  grace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
root      -- 608085656       0       0        3938317     0     0
dumitru   -- 1964720 5242880 5451776          28558     0     0

# cat /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf |egrep -v '^ *(#|$)'
protocols = imap imaps pop3 pop3s
disable_plaintext_auth = no
log_timestamp = "%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S "
mail_extra_groups = mail
protocol imap {
  mail_plugins = quota imap_quota
  mail_plugin_dir = /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/imap
}
protocol pop3 {
  pop3_uidl_format = %v.%u
}
auth default {
  mechanisms = plain
  passdb pam {
  }
  userdb passwd {
  }
  user = root
}
plugin {
  quota = fs
}

All my mail is in /home/dumitru/Maildir.

I'm using Display Quota plugin for Mozilla Thunderbird 
(https://addons.mozilla.org/thunderbird/881/) to see quota usage. When I 
access my mailbox by IMAP, Thunderbird reports that no storage quota are 
enforced on server.

 From logs:
Jun 12 17:06:07 debian dovecot: imap-login: Login: user=<dumitru>, 
method=plain, rip=10.2.5.6, lip=10.2.5.4
Jun 12 17:06:07 debian dovecot: IMAP(dumitru): quotactl(Q_GETQUOTA, 
/dev/sda9) failed: Invalid argument

Is this a dovecot bug or I am doing something wrong?

Regards,
Dumitru

Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Oh, and I forgot to mention. Please test the latest nightly snapshot (or
> CVS directly). I did a lot of changes today and I'd want to release
> beta9 soon. And I guess I should after that do a rc1 release instead of
> beta10.
>
>