-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23-12-2004 19:43, Peter Clark wrote:
On Thursday 23 December 2004 13:01, Matthias Andree wrote:
Wietse Venema does not believe in soft quotas, and I believe he has a point. The Maildir++ quota support requires a somewhat complicated update protocol, and is effectively on a voluntary basis.
What are the reasons against soft quotas?Consider using hard quotas instead.
Am I correct in thinking that soft quotas==quotas imposed by software suchas maildrop, while hard quotas==quotas imposed on the user by the kernel? If so, then this is problematic, since all the users are virtual, and none have a shell account to impose a quota upon.
Hard quota is when managed by the kernel, yes. It does not require shell access, but it does (as far I know) require each user to have a unique user-ID on the system.
- Jonas
- Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
- Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFByx5zn7DbMsAkQLgRAkSOAJ97/TwXZKuv7FU6gzmyYdxsNiBTBgCgkx/W 5uZMeZNK33M+AGMo87ND1Uo= =vbLH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----