[Dovecot] POLL: v2.2 to allow one mail over quota?
Currently if user is 1MB under quota and someone tries to deliver mail that is over 1MB, Dovecot rejects the mail. But smaller mails aren't rejected probably for days. So user might not even realize that they didn't receive one of the mails. Also having a user "almost over quota" is a rather strange state I think.
So what do you think about v2.2 allowing delivery of one last mail even if it brings the user over quota? Except add a limit that if the message size is as much as the user's entire quota limit it wouldn't be added (or 50% or ..?). Also IMAP wouldn't allow this, since user would get an error anyway. I could make this also optional, but if nobody really wants to keep the old behavior there's really no point in adding the option.
+1
Better to be lenient, than to confuse users by accepting some but not other messages.
I believe most larger mail providers has a max message size of around 64MB or less, so allowing the final message to exceed quota by about that sounds reasonable to me.
-jf
I think it should be configurable by how much (either a fixed space or relative to the quota) the last mail may be larger than the quota.... but then... +1 as well :)
Cheers, Chris.
- Jan-Frode Myklebust <janfrode@tanso.net>:
+1
Better to be lenient, than to confuse users by accepting some but not other messages.
Amen to that! +1
-- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Benjamin Franklin Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962 ralf.hildebrandt@charite.de | http://www.charite.de
On Oct 30, 2012 5:43 AM, "Ralf Hildebrandt" <Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de> wrote:
- Jan-Frode Myklebust <janfrode@tanso.net>:
+1
Better to be lenient, than to confuse users by accepting some but not
other messages.
Amen to that! +1
Surely the answer is that as soon as any mail is rejected an over-quota message is injected? That way, the quota remains as it currently is, but the user will a) be aware that he's over or nearly over quota, b) that a mail was rejected for being too big (if you inject the right over-quota message).
Simon
+1 to one last mail, though it would be nice if the over percentage could be configurable...
Computerisms
Bob Miller
867-334-7117 / 867-633-3760
http://computerisms.ca
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 22:39 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Currently if user is 1MB under quota and someone tries to deliver mail that is over 1MB, Dovecot rejects the mail. But smaller mails aren't rejected probably for days. So user might not even realize that they didn't receive one of the mails. Also having a user "almost over quota" is a rather strange state I think.
So what do you think about v2.2 allowing delivery of one last mail even if it brings the user over quota? Except add a limit that if the message size is as much as the user's entire quota limit it wouldn't be added (or 50% or ..?). Also IMAP wouldn't allow this, since user would get an error anyway. I could make this also optional, but if nobody really wants to keep the old behavior there's really no point in adding the option.
Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi> wrote:
Currently if user is 1MB under quota and someone tries to deliver mail that is over 1MB, Dovecot rejects the mail. But smaller mails aren't rejected probably for days. So user might not even realize that they didn't receive one of the mails. Also having a user "almost over quota" is a rather strange state I think.
So what do you think about v2.2 allowing delivery of one last mail even if it brings the user over quota? Except add a limit that if the message size is as much as the user's entire quota limit it wouldn't be added (or 50% or ..?). Also IMAP wouldn't allow this, since user would get an error anyway. I could make this also optional, but if nobody really wants to keep the old behavior there's really no point in adding the option.
Yes, please add this new option. If possible with configurable limit.
I'd rather have a user go directly over quota with one final mail than have a situation where half the mails get delivered and the other half is rejected.
From a 1st level support stand point this new behavior is easier to explain than the way it is now.
By looking into my new crytal ball I can see the following happening:
A user with 300KBytes under his quota gets a mail with 500KBytes in size. This of course bounces. He is then called by the sender who complains about the full mailbox. The user then sends himself a test mail (Subject: Test, Body: Test) which is delivered, because it is rather small and fits inside the few bytes left. The user then is confused. (And I have to use some of my precious time to explain to the user the inner workings of the mail system. ;))
So I'd very much appreciate such an option.
Grüße, Sven.
-- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 22:39 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
So what do you think about v2.2 allowing delivery of one last mail even if it brings the user over quota?
+1 only if configurable, and with an additional configurable quota percentage value option for those that do enable the function.
In 99.9% of cases I could never see a service provider wanting this, but some small private businesses perhaps might see a benefit in it.
Noel Butler <noel.butler@ausics.net> wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 22:39 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
So what do you think about v2.2 allowing delivery of one last mail even if it brings the user over quota?
+1 only if configurable, and with an additional configurable quota percentage value option for those that do enable the function.
In 99.9% of cases I could never see a service provider wanting this, but some small private businesses perhaps might see a benefit in it.
If your user quota is 1GiB (which is not big, if you look at todays user quotas even at freemail providers) and the max mail size 30MiB, then a users max mailbox size would then be 1054MiB.
Not an unreasonable price to pay for an easier to understand error condition, IMHO.
Grüße, Sven.
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 00:48 +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
Noel Butler <noel.butler@ausics.net> wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 22:39 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
So what do you think about v2.2 allowing delivery of one last mail even if it brings the user over quota?
+1 only if configurable, and with an additional configurable quota percentage value option for those that do enable the function.
In 99.9% of cases I could never see a service provider wanting this, but some small private businesses perhaps might see a benefit in it.
If your user quota is 1GiB (which is not big, if you look at todays user quotas even at freemail providers) and the max mail size 30MiB, then a users max mailbox size would then be 1054MiB.
Not an unreasonable price to pay for an easier to understand error condition, IMHO.
Sven , That's nice when it's one or ten, but you need to look at the big picture, what about 300K users, all doing the same. Also, as to mail sizes, in decades gone by with dialup it was 5mb, now days with DSL, Cable, FTTN etc, many that I know of use 50mb mail sizes because that takes mere seconds now days.
Don't forget, in some countries, hardware is still incredibly (criminally) overpriced, a 600G drive from HP in the U.S. is about 350 odd last time I looked, probably lot cheaper now, in this country (AU), the same drive today is still around 800, and that was when our dollar was 1.07 to the U.S. 1.00, even with taxes and customs and transport, some so and so's are still making an absolute massive killing in profits.
Of course the more appropriate way would be like most of us do now, send the warning messages, if the users can not be bothered to keep an eye on their quota or act when they get mailbox almost/now full warnings, why is it our problem :)
So what do you think about v2.2 allowing delivery of one last mail even if it brings the user over quota? Except add a limit that if the message size is as much as the user's entire quota limit it wouldn't be added (or 50% or ..?). Also IMAP wouldn't allow this, since user would get an error anyway. I could make this also optional, but if nobody really wants to keep the old behavior there's really no point in adding
On 29.10.2012 21:39, Timo Sirainen wrote: the option.
Great idea. This makes being over quota a stable state and makes it easier for users to understand their "problem".
Regards
Christian
Timo Sirainen wrote:
Currently if user is 1MB under quota and someone tries to deliver mail that is over 1MB, Dovecot rejects the mail. But smaller mails aren't rejected probably for days. So user might not even realize that they didn't receive one of the mails. Also having a user "almost over quota" is a rather strange state I think.
So what do you think about v2.2 allowing delivery of one last mail even if it brings the user over quota? Except add a limit that if the message size is as much as the user's entire quota limit it wouldn't be added (or 50% or ..?). Also IMAP wouldn't allow this, since user would get an error anyway. I could make this also optional, but if nobody really wants to keep the old behavior there's really no point in adding the option.
This will finally make possible to reject RCPT TO: before the message size is known instead of accepting the message and sending a bounce later (bouncing SPAM is not good).
-- Talex Spółka Akcyjna z siedzibą w Poznaniu adres: ul. Karpia 27d, 61-619 Poznań NIP 782-00-21-045 zarejestrowana w Sądzie Rejonowym Poznań – Nowe Miasto i Wilda w Poznaniu VIII Wydział Gospodarczy - KRS pod nr 000048779 kapitał zakładowy: 3.000.092,00 PLN (w całości wpłacony)
Uwaga: Niniejsza wiadomość, w szczególności jej treść oraz załączniki, może być poufna. W przypadku, gdy nie jest Pan/Pani zamierzonym jej adresatem, informujemy, że wszelkie rozpowszechnianie, dystrybucja lub powielanie powyższej wiadomości jest zabronione. Jednocześnie prosimy o powiadomienie nadawcy oraz niezwłoczne usunięcie powyższej wiadomości wraz z załącznikami. Dziękujemy, Talex S.A. w Poznaniu.
Confidentiality Notice: This email, particularly its content and any attached files, may be confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, distribution and reproduction of this message is prohibited. In this case please notify the sender immediately and then delete this message and any attachments. Thank you, Talex S.A., Poznan.
Sounds like a reasonable idea, but one has to keep in mind that file system quotas never work that way. So that change would make quota=fs behave differently from the rest. So it should at least be configurable, I think.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:39:51PM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Currently if user is 1MB under quota and someone tries to deliver mail that is over 1MB, Dovecot rejects the mail. But smaller mails aren't rejected probably for days. So user might not even realize that they didn't receive one of the mails. Also having a user "almost over quota" is a rather strange state I think.
So what do you think about v2.2 allowing delivery of one last mail even if it brings the user over quota? Except add a limit that if the message size is as much as the user's entire quota limit it wouldn't be added (or 50% or ..?). Also IMAP wouldn't allow this, since user would get an error anyway. I could make this also optional, but if nobody really wants to keep the old behavior there's really no point in adding the option.
I think the thing to do is to adjust the admin's thinking about it.
Yes, if the current mailstore is under quota, by all means, you should accept the next email up to the maximum size the server accepts. No exception, just take it.
You control $quota and $maxMsg. Set your quota with that in mind, where $(($quota - 1 + $maxMsg)) total is something you can live with.
That said, I have been fortunate to never have to set up a quota. Storage is cheap. An occasional cron job can point out individual users who might be beyond what you'd consider reasonable, and to those users, apply a LART.
http://rob0.nodns4.us/ -- system administration and consulting Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 22:39 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Currently if user is 1MB under quota and someone tries to deliver mail that is over 1MB, Dovecot rejects the mail. But smaller mails aren't rejected probably for days. So user might not even realize that they didn't receive one of the mails. Also having a user "almost over quota" is a rather strange state I think.
So what do you think about v2.2 allowing delivery of one last mail even if it brings the user over quota? Except add a limit that if the message size is as much as the user's entire quota limit it wouldn't be added (or 50% or ..?). Also IMAP wouldn't allow this, since user would get an error anyway. I could make this also optional, but if nobody really wants to keep the old behavior there's really no point in adding the option.
How about this, added to hg:
plugin { # LDA/LMTP allows saving the last mail to bring user from under quota to # over quota, if the quota doesn't grow too high. Default is to allow as # long as quota will stay under 10% above the limit. Also allowed e.g. 10M. #quota_last_extra = 10%% }
Each quota root has its own limit, so if using multiple quota roots (pretty rare) you'd have to set also quota2_last_extra, etc.
I wonder if there's a better name for this than "last_extra"..
Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi> wrote:
How about this, added to hg:
plugin { # LDA/LMTP allows saving the last mail to bring user from under quota to # over quota, if the quota doesn't grow too high. Default is to allow as # long as quota will stay under 10% above the limit. Also allowed e.g. 10M. #quota_last_extra = 10%% }
Each quota root has its own limit, so if using multiple quota roots (pretty rare) you'd have to set also quota2_last_extra, etc.
I wonder if there's a better name for this than "last_extra"..
quota_grace_extra quota_grace_limit quota_over_quota quota_overflow
Grüße, Sven.
-- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
Sven Hartge wrote:
Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi> wrote:
I wonder if there's a better name for this than "last_extra"..
quota_surplus
Regards Daniel
On 11.2.2013, at 4.38, Daniel Parthey <daniel.parthey@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:
Sven Hartge wrote:
Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi> wrote:
I wonder if there's a better name for this than "last_extra"..
quota_surplus
I like this. But my English isn't good enough to know if that word really fits it? The Finnish translation looks pretty close I think..
Of course, if I don't know that word so well, how many other non-English admins will know what it means?.. I guess it's mostly related to some money things.
On 2013-02-11 10:38 AM, Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi> wrote:
On 11.2.2013, at 4.38, Daniel Parthey <daniel.parthey@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:
Sven Hartge wrote:
Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi> wrote:
I wonder if there's a better name for this than "last_extra".. quota_surplus I like this. But my English isn't good enough to know if that word really fits it? The Finnish translation looks pretty close I think..
Of course, if I don't know that word so well, how many other non-English admins will know what it means?.. I guess it's mostly related to some money things.
It does fit it, but I thought of on I like better...
quote_trigger
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 11.02.2013, at 16:38, Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi> wrote:
On 11.2.2013, at 4.38, Daniel Parthey <daniel.parthey@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:
Sven Hartge wrote:
Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi> wrote:
I wonder if there's a better name for this than "last_extra"..
quota_surplus
I like this. But my English isn't good enough to know if that word really fits it?
It does, but what about:
quota_final_add_on
Regards, Michael
On Monday 11 February 2013 17:19:06 Michael Grimm wrote:
Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi> wrote:
I wonder if there's a better name for this than "last_extra"..
quota_surplus
I like this. But my English isn't good enough to know if that word really fits it? It does, but what about:
quota_final_add_on
What means surplus?
Why not simplify things and calll it
quota_mailplus
quota_plusmail
quota_oneplus
quota_plusone
Tobias Hachmer
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:56:43AM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2013-02-10 8:43 PM, Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> wrote:
quota_grace_extra
Smaller is better... why not just
quota_grace
Sounds good for me. In particular the similarity to the disk quotas grace period is blatant.
Dennis
Am 2013-02-11 17:44, schrieb Dennis Guhl:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:56:43AM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2013-02-10 8:43 PM, Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> wrote:
quota_grace
Sounds good for me. In particular the similarity to the disk quotas grace period is blatant.
Not a native english speaker, but quota_grace is very concise and resonates in a way, that makes it easily rememberable: the quota is not enforced in strictness, but handled gracefully. The server for once turns a blind eye to the quota.
Documentation: quota_grace - specify an amount in <units> that a single incoming message may exceed the quota without being rejected. Useful in situations, where ...
*Alternatively* it could also be a binary option: Only start enforcing the quota after the fact, when it is already exceeded.
-- peter
On 2013-02-11 5:04 PM, Hungerburg <pch14@myzel.net> wrote:
Am 2013-02-11 17:44, schrieb Dennis Guhl:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:56:43AM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2013-02-10 8:43 PM, Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> wrote:
quota_grace
Sounds good for me. In particular the similarity to the disk quotas grace period is blatant.
Not a native english speaker, but quota_grace is very concise and resonates in a way, that makes it easily rememberable: the quota is not enforced in strictness, but handled gracefully. The server for once turns a blind eye to the quota.
Documentation: quota_grace - specify an amount in <units> that a single incoming message may exceed the quota without being rejected. Useful in situations, where ...
*Alternatively* it could also be a binary option: Only start enforcing the quota after the fact, when it is already exceeded.
True, most systems have limits on the size of an email they will accept, which in and of itself would serve as the 'quota_grace' amount...
On 02/10/2013 05:16 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 22:39 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Currently if user is 1MB under quota and someone tries to deliver mail that is over 1MB, Dovecot rejects the mail. But smaller mails aren't rejected probably for days. So user might not even realize that they didn't receive one of the mails. Also having a user "almost over quota" is a rather strange state I think.
So what do you think about v2.2 allowing delivery of one last mail even if it brings the user over quota? Except add a limit that if the message size is as much as the user's entire quota limit it wouldn't be added (or 50% or ..?). Also IMAP wouldn't allow this, since user would get an error anyway. I could make this also optional, but if nobody really wants to keep the old behavior there's really no point in adding the option.
How about this, added to hg:
plugin { # LDA/LMTP allows saving the last mail to bring user from under quota to # over quota, if the quota doesn't grow too high. Default is to allow as # long as quota will stay under 10% above the limit. Also allowed e.g. 10M. #quota_last_extra = 10%% }
Each quota root has its own limit, so if using multiple quota roots (pretty rare) you'd have to set also quota2_last_extra, etc.
I wonder if there's a better name for this than "last_extra"..
quota_size_elasticity
Le 11 févr. 2013 à 02:16, Timo Sirainen a écrit :
[...]
I wonder if there's a better name for this than "last_extra"..
Hello Timo,
If I've correctly understood, the idea is to accept an additional message provided there is some free space AND the size of that message additional doesn't exceed above last_extra.
An additional message, even if over-quota strictly speaking, might thus be tolerated. Or the idea of an absolute quota may thus come with some tolerance.
quota_tolerance?
Axel
participants (20)
-
/dev/rob0
-
Artur Zaprzała
-
Axel Luttgens
-
Bob Miller
-
Charles Marcus
-
Christian Rohmann
-
Christoph Anton Mitterer
-
Daniel Parthey
-
Dennis Guhl
-
Edgar Fuß
-
Hungerburg
-
Jan-Frode Myklebust
-
Michael Grimm
-
Noel Butler
-
Ralf Hildebrandt
-
Raymond Lillard
-
Simon Brereton
-
Sven Hartge
-
Timo Sirainen
-
Tobias Hachmer