[Dovecot] Worthwile to use quotas?
I'm aware that dovecot doesn't support Maildir++ quotas yet (pity). However, is it still worthwhile to set up something like Postfix + Maildrop to use quotas, or is dovecot's lack of support just going to throw a wrench in the works? Thanks, :Peter
Peter Clark peter-clark@bethel.edu writes:
I'm aware that dovecot doesn't support Maildir++ quotas yet (pity).However, is it still worthwhile to set up something like Postfix + Maildrop to use quotas, or is dovecot's lack of support just going to throw a wrench in the works?
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.
Consider using hard quotas instead.
-- Matthias Andree
On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 11:01 +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
Peter Clark peter-clark@bethel.edu writes:
I'm aware that dovecot doesn't support Maildir++ quotas yet (pity).However, is it still worthwhile to set up something like Postfix + Maildrop to use quotas, or is dovecot's lack of support just going to throw a wrench in the works?
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.
Consider using hard quotas instead.
Hard quotas are difficult to handle correctly in code. Dovecot 0.99.x doesn't handle out-of-quota situations very well and 1.0-tests don't handle them at all yet.
Getting the code work 100% correctly in all out-of-quota situations is probably also impossible. The difficult part is how do you store message's UID if there is no space where to store it?
Software quotas are also problematic only if user has direct access to the system. I don't see a reason why they would otherwise be bad.
Dovecot will most likely support soft quotas within few months. It will also support different backends (maildir++, sql).
Software quotas are also problematic only if user has direct access to the system. I don't see a reason why they would otherwise be bad. As I said in my reply to Matthias Andree, all the users are virtual, so
On Thursday 23 December 2004 13:57, Timo Sirainen wrote: they would have no direct access to the system, so there's no threat of them changing the quotas.
Dovecot will most likely support soft quotas within few months. It will also support different backends (maildir++, sql). To return to my original question, would it work to implement quotas now with Maildrop, even though Dovecot doesn't support it, or should I just wait until version 1.0 (or whenever quotas are supported) is released? My thinking is that even if Dovecot doesn't support quotas, I can at least control what amount of mail arrives for the user, and I believe I saw something that said that Maildrop will recalculate the percentage of the quota filled on a regular basis if there is something (like Dovecot) fiddling with the mail but not changing the percentage. But if I'm wrong, and this is just going to hopelessly mess things up, I'd like to know. :Peter
Peter Clark peter-clark@bethel.edu writes:
To return to my original question, would it work to implementquotas now with Maildrop, even though Dovecot doesn't support it, or should I just wait until version 1.0 (or whenever quotas are supported) is released? My thinking is that even if Dovecot doesn't support quotas, I can at least control what amount of mail arrives for the user, and I believe I saw something that said that Maildrop will recalculate the percentage of the quota filled on a regular basis if there is something (like Dovecot) fiddling with the mail but not changing the percentage. But if I'm wrong, and this is just going to hopelessly mess things up, I'd like to know.
Never cared too much for softquotas. If maildrop knows when Dovecot has moved mails around (which changes the Maildir/.subfolder/{cur,new} directories' mtime) so it knows when to recalculate the quotas for folders, then give it a spin and see what you get. It might be sufficient for the moment.
-- Matthias Andree
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 such as 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. :Peter
-----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-----
participants (4)
-
Jonas Smedegaard
-
Matthias Andree
-
Peter Clark
-
Timo Sirainen